1"Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

6Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."
-Jesus Christ

It takes everyone to believe and apply these words to avoid conflict, not just some. The ones that apply these principles will find themselves the subject of persecution because conduct that is Holy is despised by those that live by evil for it convicts them of the wrong they are unwilling to part with.

Matthew 5:10-12

10 Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake.


I agree it takes everyone playing by the same rules for society to work. Its hard to find common ground when you adversary sees you as deplorable and that is what is generating a lot of the problems of today. I think that a large part of societies ills today are related to the abandoning of Judeo-Christian principles for a more secular, nihilistic view on life. We are witnessing a culture war between those points of view. The secular world view provides the only rule that you can do feels right to you and hence the unravelling of the society into intersectional fibers. Civil society, much less democracy, can't survive long without a common moral compass. However, is the the bridge between those views more easily crossed by coercion or by example?

The question is, and I think it is presented in the prayer above, what are we as individuals doing to add or provide relief to ills in the society around us. I certainly can't change society but I can change my heart. And if I choose to turn the cheek and love my enemy then I live a life, as poorly as that might be despite my best efforts, in a way that exemplifies the light of Christ. Perhaps then that light of my example will lead others to soften their hearts. If my actions and example brings light to my family then perhaps my family may provide light to the community, and then perhaps the community bring light to the wider world.

Of course, being a light may only bring me persecution. May God grant me the strength to carry that Cross.

Peterson fuels and profits off of the very divide he is lamenting here. That makes it a little difficult to accept he really believes what he's saying.

Rocag said:

---

Peterson fuels and profits off of the very divide he is lamenting here. That makes it a little difficult to accept he really believes what he's saying.

---

He is a proponent of universal moral law that holds every man accountable to the same standard without exception. Morally poor behaviors beget poor consequences, each is dealt his fate according to his fidelity to the one universal moral standard. The law rewards and punishes each man the same regardless of personal beliefs or approach to life.

No transgression fails to harm or goes unpunished and thus every transgression is harmful to everyone.

In the practical experience of life, every transgression of moral law or sin comes back to harm the transgressor of the law with consequences that range from mental disorders to returned violence.

Universal moral law pervades and governs all domains of existence, whether physical or mental. It judges conduct in personal relationships, civil society, and thoughts of the mind. An organization that does not abide by recognizable universal moral principles that include good communication, financial accountability, quality of service, honesty and efficiency, will surely fail for transgressing the moral law.

The universal moral law extends to mundane personal responsibilities such as bathing and cleaning your room where the disregard and poor condition of these transgresses the law and leads to personal harm.

As Peterson correctly points out, the manner of disorder or orderliness of your room is an exact picture of the state of your mind. By a qualitative choice of the mind you can choose to make your bed. A made bed is objectively better than an unmade bed for various reasons, including that the attention paid making the bed rewards the person with a more functional and prettier sleeping space that would lend to better sleep and overall health. So to choose to leave the bed in disorder is a moral choice because compared to an orderly bed it harms the person. Thus we realize the intersectionally of the physical and mental worlds where better conditions are a result of making objective judgements that conform to Universal Natural-moral law.

Quote:

---

So to choose to leave the bed in disorder is a moral choice because compared to an orderly bed it harms the person

---

This is a tad much.

Quote:

---

Its hard to find common ground when you adversary sees you as deplorable and that is what is generating a lot of the problems of today. I think that a large part of societies ills today are related to the abandoning of Judeo-Christian principles for a more secular, nihilistic view on life. We are witnessing a culture war between those points of view. The secular world view provides the only rule that you can do feels right to you and hence the unravelling of the society into intersectional fibers.

---

Physician, heal thyself.

You want to prevent society from unraveling, but only on your terms based on a straw man perception of the other side? Not sure how that's supposed to work.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

Its hard to find common ground when you adversary sees you as deplorable and that is what is generating a lot of the problems of today. I think that a large part of societies ills today are related to the abandoning of Judeo-Christian principles for a more secular, nihilistic view on life. We are witnessing a culture war between those points of view. The secular world view provides the only rule that you can do feels right to you and hence the unravelling of the society into intersectional fibers.

---

Physician, heal thyself.

You want to prevent society from unraveling, but only on your terms based on a straw man perception of the other side? Not sure how that's supposed to work.

---

Where did he say he wanted to prevent society from unraveling? From my reading, all he did was make an observation. In fact, he said he couldn't change society but hoped he and his family could serve as examples.

IMHO, he is not the one who needs healing.

dermdoc said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

Its hard to find common ground when you adversary sees you as deplorable and that is what is generating a lot of the problems of today. I think that a large part of societies ills today are related to the abandoning of Judeo-Christian principles for a more secular, nihilistic view on life. We are witnessing a culture war between those points of view. The secular world view provides the only rule that you can do feels right to you and hence the unravelling of the society into intersectional fibers.

---

Physician, heal thyself.

You want to prevent society from unraveling, but only on your terms based on a straw man perception of the other side? Not sure how that's supposed to work.

---

Where did he say he wanted to prevent society from unraveling? From my reading, all he did was make an observation. In fact, he said he couldn't change society but hoped he and his family could serve as examples.

IMHO, he is not the one who needs healing.

---

I get you have a problem with me. But the simple fact is that complaining about division in society but refusing to understand what the other side is arguing isn't helpful.

I actually like you but you have a tendency to project and condescend. You are much smarter than me on these issues but erroneously think you know how average conservatives think and live.

It is much like the conservative posters on F16 without the vitriol and hate.

I wish you would visit a church service sometime because they are nothing like what you appear to think they are.

And God loves you.

Sapper Redux said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

Its hard to find common ground when you adversary sees you as deplorable and that is what is generating a lot of the problems of today. I think that a large part of societies ills today are related to the abandoning of Judeo-Christian principles for a more secular, nihilistic view on life. We are witnessing a culture war between those points of view. The secular world view provides the only rule that you can do feels right to you and hence the unravelling of the society into intersectional fibers.

---

Physician, heal thyself.

You want to prevent society from unraveling, but only on your terms based on a straw man perception of the other side? Not sure how that's supposed to work.

---

Where did he say he wanted to prevent society from unraveling? From my reading, all he did was make an observation. In fact, he said he couldn't change society but hoped he and his family could serve as examples.

IMHO, he is not the one who needs healing.

---

I get you have a problem with me. But the simple fact is that complaining about division in society but refusing to understand what the other side is arguing isn't helpful.

---

And here is an example. Have you ever thought that we understand exactly what your side is arguing? And disagree with it? It is like you are so sure you are "right" that only an idiot or uninformed person would not agree with you.

And that is definitely not the case.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

So to choose to leave the bed in disorder is a moral choice because compared to an orderly bed it harms the person

---

This is a tad much.

---

What is objectionable in the rationale that a made bed is the result of of a moral decision regarding a person's wellbeing?

'A made bed is objectively better than an unmade bed for various reasons, including that the attention paid making the bed rewards the person with a more functional and prettier sleeping space that would lend to better sleep and overall health. So to choose to leave the bed in disorder is a moral choice because compared to an orderly bed it harms the person.

It is interesting to me how this guy is held up as some sort of intellectual. It seems that being able to string together intelligent sounding rhetoric, and it helps having an accent, passes as intellectualism.

He is considered an intellectual because of the body of work he has on his CV. He has served as a professor at places of higher learning, such as Harvard and the university of Toronto. He has hundreds of publications and has been cited thousands of times. I find it curious that people with far less achievement in their life disqualify him as an intellectual simply because they disagree with his findings.

I find it more curious that many people who dislike him have never actually listened to what he is saying. Rather, they have just lazily accepted what others accuse him of having falsely said.

Peterson is smart, but he's also spent decades thinking about the overlap between his clinical psychology and philosophy. When he gets going on those subjects it can be beautiful.

Certainly some of the more controversial topics that he speaks about, there is a lot of disagreement about the terminology and grounds of the subject. Sometimes that gets in the way of having a good discussion… there is a lot of work just getting through the premises. His positions are actually almost all premises, in a strange way. He very rarely admits, in anything I've seen, to his own politics. He's definitely against speech laws, but aside from that he has refused to say whether he's conservative or liberal or to share his position on most political subjects.

When it comes to debates, he's one of the most respectful and honest debaters out there, so I have a little bit of a hard time understanding why people hate him so much.

I know exactly why people do not like him.

He actually ran for office as a candidate of a far left socialist party before he was 20 years old. He left the socialist party when he realized it was a fraud and whose policies often led to the worsening of the human condition. He describes himself as "open" in personality trait which is a trait that predicts more liberal ideology. Additionally, he has a massive dislike for Trudeau. I think I can safely say he hates Marxism and communism.

I think his bigger concern is outside of the common left vs right conversations. His first book, Maps and Meaning, centered around the idea of how you, an ordinary person, could find yourself working as a concentration camp guard. He studied and wrote about the seeds that led to the great humanitarian disasters of the 20th century. Those seeds can be generated by either right or left ideology; The patterns are the same. As such, his concern today is that the post modern types are behaving in that pattern that left unchecked, has the potential for ushering in the next humanitarian disaster.

JBP is popular because he teaches people to take responsibility for their lives and avoid the nihilism and self-victimization that run rampant in our culture.

Yes it's cliched, but his style and presentation connect with many people.

I do agree that he should do his best to avoid the culture war vortex. Even if his perceptions and fears about society and culture are correct I don't think it adds a lot to his message above but it does create a lot of negativity.

Serotonin said:

---

JBP is popular because he teaches people to take responsibility for their lives and avoid the nihilism and self-victimization that run rampant in our culture.

Yes it's cliched, but his style and presentation connect with many people.

I do agree that he should do his best to avoid the culture war vortex. Even if his perceptions and fears about society and culture are correct I don't think it adds a lot to his message above but it does create a lot of negativity.

---

It can't be done when the liberals legislate and rule against personal freedoms adversing moral liberties protected by the constitution.

I'm pretty far left-of-center as far as Texags is concerned and disagree with a lot of what Peterson says, but I've always found Peterson to be articulate and, for the most part, well-reasoned.

I too am curious about why so many dislike him so much.

I think it has less to do with Peterson himself and more to do with his obnoxious fans.

I guess I'm out of the loop. What's the deal with his fans, and why should the actions of his fans draw people's ire towards Peterson?

This is probably the best and most thorough discussion about JP from a critical standpoint.

He is certainly smart and I have no qualms with him in his professional area of expertise, with some of the exceptions mentioned in the book like his penchant for enormous vaguery.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve


And he's made his name by embarrasing unprepared college kids and reporters. When he has stepped up to people on a seemingly equal intellectual and/or professional level, he's been boring, at best, and at times flat out embarrased - like Dillahunty and Zizek for two. Hell, even Jim Jeffries made him look foolish.

There's a basic stereotype of them as simultaneously being extremely arrogant that their point of view is the best while mindlessly puppeting anything Peterson says. Kind of a cult of personality he's built around himself which is almost overwhelmingly male and overly confrontational.

As for Peterson himself, I thought this Reddit thread asking about why he gets so much hate was interesting: Reddit: Why is Jordan Peterson so hated?

Just curious, why is it that it seems it is almost all liberals who hate him? What does he say that bothers y'all?

Rocag said:

---

There's a basic stereotype of them as simultaneously being extremely arrogant that their point of view is the best while mindlessly puppeting anything Peterson says. Kind of a cult of personality he's built around himself which is almost overwhelmingly male and overly confrontational.

As for Peterson himself, I thought this Reddit thread asking about why he gets so much hate was interesting: Reddit: Why is Jordan Peterson so hated?

---

And seriously, you have read some of the posts on here and call Peterson fans arrogant? And that their point of view is the best?

Wow.

Rocag said:

---

There's a basic stereotype of them as simultaneously being extremely arrogant that their point of view is the best while mindlessly puppeting anything Peterson says. Kind of a cult of personality he's built around himself which is almost overwhelmingly male and overly confrontational.

As for Peterson himself, I thought this Reddit thread asking about why he gets so much hate was interesting: Reddit: Why is Jordan Peterson so hated?

---

This is a pretty good quote from that thread.

Peterson became a household name for lying about a bill defending trans people from harassment. He did so by making this very simple and straightforward bill sound like a free speech issue (it really wasn't) and pretending that it oppressed him, personally (it did not).

Some of the posts make points on him I agree with, others don't. There's one that makes the comparison with Bill Nye that I agree with in that people too often see a person with an expertise in one field but then treat that person as still an expert when they speak about completely unrelated fields. I don't enjoy Peterson's debate style and agree with those who say it tends to be purposely vague at points in order to mislead.

I don't personally have very strong feelings about him and admittedly don't regularly watch his videos.

Rocag said:

---

Some of the posts make points on him I agree with, others don't. There's one that makes the comparison with Bill Nye that I agree with in that people too often see a person with an expertise in one field but then treat that person as still an expert when they speak about completely unrelated fields. I don't enjoy Peterson's debate style and agree with those who say it tends to be purposely vague at points in order to mislead.

I don't personally have very strong feelings about him and admittedly don't regularly watch his videos.

---

That is reasonable.

Macarthur said:

---

Rocag said:

---

There's a basic stereotype of them as simultaneously being extremely arrogant that their point of view is the best while mindlessly puppeting anything Peterson says. Kind of a cult of personality he's built around himself which is almost overwhelmingly male and overly confrontational.

As for Peterson himself, I thought this Reddit thread asking about why he gets so much hate was interesting: Reddit: Why is Jordan Peterson so hated?

---

This is a pretty good quote from that thread.

Peterson became a household name for lying about a bill defending trans people from harassment. He did so by making this very simple and straightforward bill sound like a free speech issue (it really wasn't) and pretending that it oppressed him, personally (it did not).

---

That post from Reddit lies. It hides behind a facade of oppression, common among liberal activists.

The issue was that the state compelled speech. They were outlawing the use of biological pronoun usage when referring to a trans person.

In practical effect, the state levied punishment on people who refused to refer to a trans by there preferred pronoun. This denies personal freedom to act in truth and conscience but by compelled government action. This is fascism.

I'm no legal expert but the issue is repeated misuse that would rise to the level of harrassment. So basically, if you want to be an ass and keep using the improper pronoun even after repeated attempts to correct you.

https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identity-rights-bill-c-16-explained

So, while it is possible it could rise to a legal issue, that is highly unlikely so I don't think the reddit comment was a lie. The issue is that Peterson took an issue way out of context and made himself famous over it.

I think Peterson picked his moment to say that Canada was headed down a dangerous path, and that you don't wait until the end of the path to stop walking. He's spent a lot of time thinking about how you end up with totalitarian states, and regulating speech is one of the big ones.

Was this particular law, in itself, a really big deal? I don't know, I'm not Canadian so I don't know a ton about it. I don't trust far left Reddit people to explain it correctly, either. But Peterson certainly decided that it was worth risking his career to say "no". That action propelled him to fame, I don't know if thats what he was after. If it is, the folks who dislike him most have themselves to thank, it was the attacks that put him on the radar.

I'm predisposed to like it when someone speaks out (1) against the dominant culture, and (2) in favor of less government involvement in increasingly petty matters of thought and belief. So maybe I'm being unfairly favorable to him. At the same time, I strongly he suspect that he has a lot more in common with Johnathan Haidt than Ben Shapiro. They all push back against a lot of the excesses of the cultural trends emanating from the left, but Haidt is very liberal himself while Shapiro obviously isn't. So any support I have for Peterson isn't because I think he would join a Let's Go Brandon chant at a NASCAR race, it's purely because I appreciate his approach to some of these problems.

Macarthur said:

---

I'm no legal expert but the issue is repeated misuse that would rise to the level of harrassment. So basically, if you want to be an ass and keep using the improper pronoun even after repeated attempts to correct you.

https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identity-rights-bill-c-16-explained

So, while it is possible it could rise to a legal issue, that is highly unlikely so I don't think the reddit comment was a lie. The issue is that Peterson took an issue way out of context and made himself famous over it.

---

You need far more than legal advise. Your opinion of what you are does not force me to acknowledge your delusion or to legally respect it.

Transgender people's pronouns are absolutely a free speech issue. The idea that calling people by the pronouns of their biological sex is harassment is total nonsense.

It's been a while since I first read that Current Affairs article, and while I think it makes some fair points, I'm still generally a fan of Jordan Peterson's ideas, whether regurgitated or not. I'm no expert on the Canadian gender speech law, but I absolutely think he was on the right side of it. All that being said, I agree his debating style is frustratingly vague.