I don’t know (which is the correct answer).

Doing what? Looking at the camera?

Fun fact: that first picture does not depict shell shock, that’s a myth:

“Wounded Canadian soldiers at the battle of Courcelette, in the Somme region during WWI. This photo is very widely distributed in a cropped form, without attribution, and mis-titled “The Shell Shocked Soldier.” In reality the soldiers shown have received physical injuries and are being treated at a dressing station.”

Wikipedia

What the fuck am I looking at in that last panel?

Dude just restart your computer and roll back to a previous version of your relationship when everything wasn’t fucked.

It barely qualifies as a game, it’s like a recipe for a game, which only includes ingredients, but not how to bake it.

Also, if you do manage to play, it’s basically a rape simulator lol.

Also only white people exist because… “Historical accuracy”, while also giving all the fictional races accents based on human dialects.

I made this exact post on Github lol.

The takeaway is this: Sonarr/Radarr v5 will solve this by setting the airtime, and restricting torrent grabs before that. There may also be a manual offset override (hours).

I still think the easier solution is to set the indexer to manually choose what qualifies as a dangerous file type.

Goddamn I’m so fucking jealous of him in this moment. Dude is rolling hard, would’ve been the best moment of his life.

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.

Timothy Lott:

Quick question: are you a Christian?

Jordan Peterson:

I suppose the most straightforward answer to that is ‘Yes.’ But it’s… let’s leave it at ‘Yes.’

Interview from 2017

You:

But that positioning one as totally different as an atheist compared to the christian is wild

When discussing ethics, morals, virtues, empathy and compassion, they are deeply entwined to religious ideology.

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.

You can keep sounding like a meme and I’m going to keep calling Trump what he actually is; a fascist.

The truth will be louder than your tantrum.

This is exactly the problem. You admit he’s not a literal Nazi, but then you want to redefine the term until it just means “fascist who reminds me of Hitler”. That’s sloppy and self-defeating.

If Trump is a fascist, call him a fascist. Fascism is already enough; it carries all the authoritarian, ultranationalist, and anti-democratic weight it needs. When you inflate it into “Nazi” three things happen:

1. You blur history. Nazis weren’t just fascists; they were a specific movement tied to German racial ideology, Lebensraum, and National Socialism. Pretending it’s interchangeable erases the fact that fascism takes different forms in different places.

2. You hand them a defence. If you call Trump a Nazi, he and his defenders can instantly go “See? They’re hysterical, everyone’s Hitler to them”. The word loses its punch. If you call him a fascist, there’s no escape, it sticks because it’s technically correct.

3. You dilute urgency. If Trump is a “Nazi” then what do you call the actual neo-Nazis goose-stepping with swastikas? Once you’ve maxed out the language, you’ve got nowhere left to escalate when something worse comes along.

Calling Trump a Nazi might feel cathartic, but it’s lazy. Calling him a fascist is both correct and harder to dodge. Accuracy is a weapon, why throw it away?

Nazi is not a synonym for fascist.

Nazis were a specific fascist movement in 1930s Germany, rooted in German ethno-nationalism, racial purity laws, and National Socialist party ideology. Fascism as a system is broader; it existed in Italy, Spain, Portugal, Japan, and elsewhere, each with unique traits.

Trump is a textbook fascist. He meets Eco’s 14 traits almost line-by-line. But calling him a Nazi is both technically wrong and strategically sloppy. It:

1. Collapses nuance: Not every fascist = Hitler. Mussolini wasn’t Hitler, Franco wasn’t Hitler. Trump isn’t Hitler; he’s his own brand of fascist.

2. Hurts credibility: Throwing “Nazi” at everything feeds the exact stereotype of the left as hysterical and unserious. Precision strengthens arguments, inflation weakens them.

3. Lets fascists off the hook: If you only call someone a Nazi when they literally cosplay as Hitler, you leave room for “non-Nazi” fascists to hide in plain sight. Better to call them what they actually are: fascists.

Yes, some of Trump’s followers idolize Hitler. That makes those people neo-Nazis. But that doesn’t make Trump, or the entire MAGA movement, literal Nazis. They’re fascists. And that distinction matters if you want to be taken seriously instead of sounding like you’re just screaming ‘Hitler!’ at everything.