Comments by "Digital Nomad" (@digitalnomad9985) on "The Rubin Report"
channel.
-
That sort of thing happens all the time and nobody tries to stop it by force. What you are describing is essentially what much of modern media and art does. Christians get slandered in movies all the time. When a Christian character is depicted in a movie he is either the villain or a dupe. I am sure the same thing happens in other kinds of movies as well, but I am an action movie fan. In Ultraviolet, the villainous organization was represented as a sort of Church, with Christian iconography. In Equilibrium, the same. In Priest, a Catholic Church analog is the organization that fights the vampires, but the high Church official is a villain. In the latest Resident Evil l film the head villain and his clones quote Christian scripture and lead cultists in evil mayhem.
In the area of "fine art" Andrfes Serrano got a federal arts grant for "Piss Christ", a photograph of a crucifix in a jar of his own urine, and the Robert Maplethorpe exibit, also marked for a federal arts grant, was a collection of homosexual erotica photographs. Unlike the publisher of the Charlie Hebdo cartoon, who was murdered for publishing a Muhammad cartoon, Maplethorpe and Serrano are alive and well.
I can't tell you about TV, I don't watch TV.
As for patriotism, it receives much the same treatment. US flag burning is popular and essentially encouraged in the nations prominent universities. Patriots and soldiers are depicted as monsters in an unending supply of well funded and lavishly produced and promoted movies that nobody watches, but which keep getting made, while the fact that the few movies that depict our servicemen positively actually sell tickets is ignored.
Except for the Muhammad part (for obvious reasons) your "wild hypothetical" essentially happens every day, and has elicited no calls for censorship. There has been some support for eliminating the National Endowment for the Arts that keeps funding folks like Serrano and Maplethorpe, but that is not censorship. So, your hypothetical scenario, informed by your prejudices, has been amply proven wrong by experiment.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@danielvincent1153
Your original claim was that Peterson was saying the same thing that Cortez was, that it is OK to play fast and loose with facts in a good cause. Your Peterson quotes don't equate to that. He has been lauding the metaphorical lessons learned from what he regards as the foundational myths of western society. That's not the same as advocating saying something is literally true when it is literally not. What was expressed by Nietzche is presumably what he said before that sentence.
Nietzche did say:
To renounce belief in one's ego, to deny one's own "reality" -- what a triumph! not merely over the senses, over appearance, but a much higher kind of triumph, a violation and cruelty against reason -- a voluptuous pleasure that reaches its height when the ascetic self-contempt and self-mockery of reason declares: "there is a realm of truth and being, but reason is excluded from it!"
But precisely because we seek knowledge, let us not be ungrateful to such resolute reversals of accustomed perspectives and valuations with which the spirit has, with apparent mischievousness and futility, raged against itself for so long: to see differently in this way for once, to want to see differently, is no small discipline and preparation for its future "objectivity" -- the latter understood not as "contemplation without interest" (which is a nonsensical absurdity), but as the ability to control one's Pro and Con and to dispose of them, so that one knows how to employ a variety of perspectives and affective interpretations in the service of knowledge.
Henceforth, my dear philosophers, let us be on guard against the dangerous old conceptual fiction that posited a "pure, will-less, painless, timeless knowing subject"; let us guard against the snares of such contradictory concepts as "pure reason," absolute spirituality," "knowledge in itself": these always demand that we should think of an eye that is completely unthinkable, an eye turned in no particular direction, in which the active and interpreting forces, through which alone seeing becomes seeing something, are supposed to be lacking; these always demand of the eye an absurdity and a nonsense. There is only a perspective seeing, only a perspective "knowing"; and the more affects we allow to speak about one thing, the more eyes, different eyes, we can use to observe one thing, the more complete will our "concept" of this thing, our "objectivity," be. But to eliminate the will altogether, to suspend each and every affect, supposing we were capable of this -- what would that mean but to castrate the intellect?
from Nietzsche's The Genealogy of Morals, s III.12, Walter Kaufmann transl.
Metaphysical world.-- It is true, there could be a metaphysical world; the absolute possibility of it is hardly to be disputed. We behold all things through the human head and cannot cut off this head; while the question nonetheless remains what of the world would still be there if one had cut it off.
from Nietzsche's Human, All Too Human, s.9, R.J. Hollingdale transl.
We have arranged for ourselves a world in which we can live - by positing bodies, lines, planes, causes and effects, motion and rest, form and content; without these articles of faith nobody could now endure life. But that does not prove them. Life is no argument. The conditions of life might include error.
from Nietzsche's The Gay Science, s.121, Walter Kaufmann transl..
"So I would say" that is clearly NOT attributing the following to N, as you seem to imply by omitting the context. He is expressing his own idea.
"The ethical pursuit supercedes the scientific pursuit with regards to truth claims" That's meaningless on materialistic terms, because the ethical is meaningless on materialistic terms, but why do you assume he is a materialist? If the ethical is valid, that is if the qualifying claims of morality to objectivity, universality, and transcendence are true then BY DEFINITION it is the judge of all things. What is there IN SCIENCE that would keep a scientist from doing evil? And if the ethical is invalid, on what basis do you condemn liars, as you seemed ready enough to do?
"There are truths other than the literal, and perhaps even more truthful than the literal truths"
This is the whole basis of literary fiction, fable, and metaphor. That a lesson can be taken from a story (a moral or a factual lesson) when we indulge in our "willing suspension of disbelief" (to use Coleridge's phrase) as if from personal experience - without our having to make the mistake, or hazard the experience. Peterson finds in some stories the distilled wisdom of the ages because the idea conveyed by them is helpful.
You asked earlier if I had watched any of Petersons debates with Harris, I did watch part of them, it was painful to watch because they were speaking to cross purposes. Harris was implying that Peterson was being disingenuous for contradicting materialism. If you have listened to the first Rubin conversation with Peterson and Ben Shapiro, it should be obvious that Peterson is NOT a materialist. If I had to guess, and since Peterson does not come out and say I suppose that he is an agnostic. What Peterson was saying to Harris may well be meaningless on Harris' assumptions, but Peterson does not share those assumptions.
1
-
@jamesbarber4765 "we are supposed to believe that everyone, that has a problem with Jews, is because they are smart business people/men?"
Jews because they're Jews? Sure. It makes more sense than the notion that an ethnicity is a conspiracy.
"There are a lot of smart Nigerians, Chinese, East Indian, Russians, and a whole plethora of other groups that are wealthy and smart business people and everyone doesn't hate them."
Not everybody hates the Jews, either. And many hate some or all of the groups above. In his book he documented the violence and targeted crime against all the above groups. So it is primarily a case of similarity, not contrast.
"So it's got to be deeper than that."
It is. Satan is the prince of this world. Satan hates the Jews, and would love to destroy them to "prevent" the fulfillment of future prophesies. Satan teaches his children to hate them, too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
You claim that those who criticize Jews are especially punished. But I can just tell that if you really believed that, down to your toes, you would never dare to criticize Jews yourself. You are a bully, and a bully never picks on the one he thinks is powerful. The notion that an ethnicity is a conspiracy is absurd. The pogrom racket is always the same. You envy and resent Jews for prospering, so you want to displace them and steal their stuff. You need an excuse, so the envy and larceny and bigotry in your heart you project to your intended victims.
And you contradict yourself. You say that it is the Jewish religion that prompts Jews to hostility and domination plots toward gentiles and Christians and that Zionism is part of the plot, then when you list subversive Jews in places of power you list atheist Jews whose family has never darkened the door of a synagogue, sometimes for generations, and who are more hostile to Israel than you are. You say the Jews are to be blamed because they killed Christ, then you say modern Jews are not descendants of the Old and New Testament Jews. You deny the historical holocaust by way of trying to improve the image of Nazis, then call for a holocaust. If a holocaust is bad, why are you calling for one? If it is not bad, why do you spend so much energy trying to deny the 20th century European one? Not only are each of your claims unsupported and absurd in isolation, they don't even fit together into a consistent lie.
Now watch these groypers call me a Jew. (As if that were an answer)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes, an agnostic that isn't an anti-theist like the old "new atheists". Even Dawkins is dithering and backpedaling a bit. Both Elon and Dawkins have called themselves recently "cultural Christians", but crucially Elon doesn't hate Christianity and want to extirpate it like Dawkins does (after Christianity has, he hopes, saved Britain from the onslaught of the Paynim hordes. Again.) I fully expect Dawkins, at least to resume business as usual as soon as Britain's existential crisis has passed (if it does).
I've prayed for Christian resurgence and revival. But I've also prayed for this. For us, Jesus will not be used as a means to an end, He is Lord, but it's only Christian charity to wish for our neighbors all the grace they can receive, and peace and prosperity as a temporal good, with all its spiritual dangers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1