Ironic...

Fucking shopping carts.

Does borderlands really "need" some bleeding edge engine?

Its not a terribly complex game? And nobody gives a shit if its a bit janky.

Borderlands, like its movie, is the kid who gets an ant farm for his birthday, pulls out the tubes, shoves one end up his ass and starts sucking the farts out with the other.

Yes, its entertaing, but nobody expects it to be high-class.

I'm using Christian Traditionalist as shorthand for Christian + Christian Traditionalist.

There are many ways to contrast them, but perhaps the most salient is in their reputations.

Harris has been labeled as one of the new horsemen of atheism or some dumb shit.

Peterson is some kind of postmodern Christian lobster or some shit. Whatever it is, its defined by judaeo-christian values and cleaning up your bedroom.

(I joke about the lobsters and cleaning up bedrooms but for as much shit Peterson gets, these two memes are commonly misunderstood as goofs)

I contrasted them because someone else brought Peterson into the conversation and said they're comparable, as far as to say Harris could potentially 'go fascist'.

My point was so say they couldn't be more different in terms of ideology.

I'm guessing Peterson is pro-Trump? (I dont know I dont give a shit about Peterson lol)

Meanwhile, Sam spends half his podcasts shrugging off claims of "Trump Derangement Syndrome", while making it abundantly clear that Trump is the epitome of everything that is wrong with the world.

Sam could never be a fascist, and I think the assertion that he 'could be' is laughable.

Full disclosure: I'm a fan of Sam (though I don't agree on everything he says)

OK. Well I wouldn't dare contradict how someone chooses to identify.

Are we done here? Because my original point had not a single thing to do with Jordan Peterson and I would really like for him to be irrelevant where possible.

Being a christian traditionalist doesn't require the person to actually believe in a god.

Peterson does though, explicitly (with an annoying amount of nuance)

Peterson is a self ascribed Christian and Christian Traditionalist.

That position is opposite.

I'm really not interested in arguing semantics until we reach the point where I say "when I said Peterson was a Christian traditionalist I meant both"

This conversation is splitting hairs over what?

Is there a point to be made here beyond "Peterson isn't what he claims to be"?

An atheist materialist is someone who does not believe in the existence of any gods and also holds the view that only physical matter exists. (No metaphysical realms, spirits or karma)

This is Sam Harris to a point.

A Christian traditionalist is someone who emphasises the importance of historical beliefs, practice's, and customs within Christianity, often adhering to teachings and rituals that predate modern changes in the faith.

I call Peterson a traditionalist because he's self identifies as a traditionalist.

Being a "atheist" is not in conflict with being a ["theist"]

I think you'll find that they're polar opposites.

I'm not going to pretend I'm a mind reader. If someone says they're a Christian, I'm not going to waste time telling them they aren't.

We don't know why he claims to be a Christian but refuses to spell out why. Perhaps he had an experience he can't explain and knows it's irrational.

Or maybe it's cosmic fear of the abyss.

Or maybe it's fear of God's wrath.

Whatever the case, I agree, he's not really a Christian. Nor is the overwhelming majority of Americans who identify as such.

Which is why I made the distinction: Christian Traditionalist.

The semantics of what those words mean independently is besides the point; it's like arguing the Nazi's (National Socialists) are not really Socialist.

Like, yeah, sure. They're not socialists, but they are literal Nazi's lol.

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.

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 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.

What's the import status on these bad boys?