this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2025
359 points (96.4% liked)

Political Memes

9456 readers
3951 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

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".

[–] Zozano@aussie.zone 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Zozano@aussie.zone 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

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"?

[–] Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Zozano@aussie.zone 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 31 minutes ago (1 children)

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

[–] Zozano@aussie.zone 1 points 19 minutes ago* (last edited 15 minutes ago)

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)