I was straight but the garfield in this meme… I am gay now.

I am looking forward to the christian efforts to save our souls by finding the counter-piece to garfield.

Yeah and Malay food 😋 god, d is easy

Yeah, which is why I said, we are lucky.

My issue is similar but I would say,

We are lucky if an agi actually align with our interests, or even the creator’s interests.

I personally believe that in an AGI world, the rich will mistreat the former workers, that might work for a while but at some point, not only are the people fed up of the abuse but the “geniuses” who created their position of power are gone and the children or children’s children will have the wealth and power. The rest of the world will realise that there is no merit to either of there position. And the blood of millions will soak the earth and if we are lucky, AGI survives and serves the collective well. If we aren’t… oh well…

Good thing that we aren’t there.

Well they are slightly vague terms, so please don’t feel stupid. A shocking amount of people who think they know, don’t know.

Left wing politics are generally about a rejection of hierarchy of people. Consequently, they tend to be interested in an international community because we are all the same and deserve the same. As freedom is something that everyone wants for themselves, the left tend to be in favor of an equally free community, e.g. freedom to love.

Right wing politica are generally about hierarchy of people. But not because the hierarchy is necessarily the point, but it tend to be in favor of maintaining the current state, Which just happens to be hierarchical. And usually everything get viewed from a hierarchical pov. E.g. nationalism is a hierarchical view of country and people, your country and its people above other country and their people.

Obviously you could point at the historical stance of us republicans that they want a small government and argue that a small government creates less of 2 class citizens, the law markers and the citizens. But the left would point out that a small government just enables the powerful people to exploit the weak people and create more 2 class citizens.

On the left: The strong hierarchy in the previous attempts of “communism” is the reason why some people will say that true communism was never tried. Other will argue that you need a little bit of authority to run a communustic state.

So the whole thing is a little more complex than “freedom” and “restrictions” and who supports what “restrictions” when.

You might be right but I think your chosen contrast is bad.

I could easily be a christian traditionalist, materialist and atheist. (I am not! But I could)

Whatever reason there is to oppose the claim that Harris is like peterson, whatever reason there is why Harris could never be a fascist, you aren’t highlighting it with that contrast.

You contrasted Harris to peterson based on their religious beliefs. I find that questionable. I don’t know what you are doing.

After hearing him speak about his belief, I wouldn’t dare to make any claim about his religious beliefs beyond that he is very careful with saying absolutely nothing about it.

I don’t care for Harris. So sure, he might is. And I know what it means.

I agree with your definition of christian traditionalist.

as you correctly described,

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

Being a “atheist” is not in conflict with being a [“theist”] I think you’ll find that they’re polar opposites.

Is therefore a wrong conclusion.

Being an “atheist” is not in conflict with being 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 misunderstood your position then because I didn’t understand it as “christian traditionalist” but “christian” “traditionalist”. I had that impression because you contrasted it to “atheist” “materialist”. Being a “atheist” is not in conflict with being a “christian traditionalist”, neither does being a “materialist”.

The whole jubilee video got re-themed because he was invited as a christian but his position was that un-christian. And that is not a 8yo interview snippet that already indicates that it isn’t a simple yes for him.

And yes religious belief is important for the topic, which is why I think it is wild to paint him as a christian. His position is not really Christian.

Well his actions don’t paint him as a literal Christian nationalist. His actions paint him as someone who for whatever reason supports (or uses) christian nationalism. His motivation is not clear because there is no advantage to praise Christianity 24/7 while refusing to be labeled a christian. I would understand why he wouldn’t want to be labeled a nationalist but christian? I haven’t heard a single reasonable case for that behavior.

Against this is not about whether or not peterson is a bad person and supportive of bigotry and hatred. But his christian identity in comparison to Harris’ non-chriatuan identity.

You are welcome to shittalk peterson but this isn’t, and wasn’t about that and you are shifting the goal post.

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.

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.

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.

Yeah, thanks for putting it that way.

Sry fr typos. Typin with just the left hans is complicated. Anyway, this msn is telling the truth, there are so many men that I havw to stand 5 meters away ans that is just not the experience.

Honestly and in all seriousness, I don’t think trans rights matter enough to drop them. Like these people aren’t in favor of e.g. trump because of trans rights. They are in favor of trump. Why? There is no actual reason. We are talking about people who want the death penalty and a small government??? Who want to cut spending and vote for the guy who spends more money??? they are worried about the quality of life of workers and vote ice cold capitalist into power??? Trans rights don’t matter for them, it is a story that they can tell themselves. It is a “reason” because “idk i am just really frustrated and I don’t know how to deal with the mental discomfort of acknowledging that my behavior especially my political behavior supported the creation of the situation that I strongly dislike” just isn’t comfortable for them.

Trans rights are more than extremely important but politically, they just don’t matter. Dropping them will change nothing, but make us worse people.

Flowcharts are where the tech debt starts tbf