Jordan Peterson

[Speaker to Animals]

[GloryofGreece]

Yep, overall , radical or what I call hyper individualism is faulty for a political or social philosophy. You can't have a nation or state of radical individuals. Its an oxymoron. Only a clinical psychologist or autistic Randian would think otherwise. You do use personal responsibility and self help gurus to get your day to day life on the right track, but its not a social theory or organizing principal of any civilization. Nor should or could it be. Pride in your heritage and traditions isnt pathological or even worrisome. Its what can bind a people together. Its why one would care to know and learn from the past and one's elders. That's another absurd claim by the doctor as well.

[Fife]

What's a radical, or a "non-radical," individualist?

What makes it radical, or "hyper?"

I suggest we need some kind of simple definition of what you mean.

[GloryofGreece]

What's a radical, or a "non-radical," individualist?

What makes it radical, or "hyper?"

I suggest we need some kind of simple definition of what you mean.

I will define it sometime today or tomorrow. For now, know that it exist and if your curious and have time watch the above video. Its a good primer. Not totally defining that term exactly or focusing on it exclusively but you get the gist.

[Fife]

What's a radical, or a "non-radical," individualist?

What makes it radical, or "hyper?"

I suggest we need some kind of simple definition of what you mean.

I will define it sometime today or tomorrow. For now, know that it exist and if your curious and have time watch the above video. Its a good primer. Not totally defining that term exactly or focusing on it exclusively but you get the gist.

No offense intended here, but I really don't need a 30 minute youtube primer on fascism or anti-Christian doctrine.

I'm not asking for a research paper, just what *you* mean when you say radical=hyper=bad with regard to individualism.

[GloryofGreece]

What's a radical, or a "non-radical," individualist?

What makes it radical, or "hyper?"

I suggest we need some kind of simple definition of what you mean.

I will define it sometime today or tomorrow. For now, know that it exist and if your curious and have time watch the above video. Its a good primer. Not totally defining that term exactly or focusing on it exclusively but you get the gist.

No offense intended here, but I really don't need a 30 minute youtube primer on fascism or anti-Christian doctrine.

I'm not asking for a research paper, just what *you* mean when you say radical=hyper=bad with regard to individualism.

Then Ill assume you're asking in good faith. And Ill leave you will something simple. A hyper individualist is one that puts too much value in his or her own so called self actualization. This person would in a pathological or unbalanced (if you prefer) take on what is good for himself is all that matters. They don't put enough emphasis on the community and others they fucking live with and around. Its the Piaget idea of living in a way that is good for youself, your family, your neighborhood, your nation and good now, in a year, and in the distant future. That's essentially how you should live. Not in some narcissistic self aggrandizing or obsessive way. You know that if someone can over value or emphasis the communal the same is true of the individual.

[Fife]

I will define it sometime today or tomorrow. For now, know that it exist and if your curious and have time watch the above video. Its a good primer. Not totally defining that term exactly or focusing on it exclusively but you get the gist.

No offense intended here, but I really don't need a 30 minute youtube primer on fascism or anti-Christian doctrine.

I'm not asking for a research paper, just what *you* mean when you say radical=hyper=bad with regard to individualism.

Then Ill assume you're asking in good faith. And Ill leave you will something simple. A hyper individualist is one that puts too much value in his or her own so called self actualization. This person would in a pathological or unbalanced (if you prefer) take on what is good for himself is all that matters. They don't put enough emphasis on the community and others they fucking live with and around. Its the Piaget idea of living in a way that is good for youself, your family, your neighborhood, your nation and good now, in a year, and in the distant future. That's essentially how you should live. Not in some narcissistic self aggrandizing or obsessive way. You know that if someone can over value or emphasis the communal the same is true of the individual.

Of course I'm asking in good faith.

It looks like you are describing mental illness ("pathological," "unbalanced" are your words).

Is refusal to give consent to make payment towards a charity or private cause that one disagrees with pathological, or unbalanced?

What is the correct balance, in your view, of how much of a man's wages should go to people and causes he does *not* consent to supporting? Is there room for a nonpathological or "balanced" refusal to consent?

[GloryofGreece]

No offense intended here, but I really don't need a 30 minute youtube primer on fascism or anti-Christian doctrine.

I'm not asking for a research paper, just what *you* mean when you say radical=hyper=bad with regard to individualism.

Then Ill assume you're asking in good faith. And Ill leave you will something simple. A hyper individualist is one that puts too much value in his or her own so called self actualization. This person would in a pathological or unbalanced (if you prefer) take on what is good for himself is all that matters. They don't put enough emphasis on the community and others they fucking live with and around. Its the Piaget idea of living in a way that is good for youself, your family, your neighborhood, your nation and good now, in a year, and in the distant future. That's essentially how you should live. Not in some narcissistic self aggrandizing or obsessive way. You know that if someone can over value or emphasis the communal the same is true of the individual.

Of course I'm asking in good faith.

It looks like you are describing mental illness ("pathological," "unbalanced" are your words).

Is refusal to give consent to make payment towards a charity or private cause that one disagrees with pathological, or unbalanced?

What is the correct balance, in your view, of how much of a man's wages should go to people and causes he does *not* consent to supporting? Is there room for a nonpathological or "balanced" refusal to consent?

In summary, it would be unbalanced to not give what the community has made traditional by way of custom and loyalties to give. A person is not "free" to live as he pleases. The man in the woods is only allowed to be the hermit he is b/c the community beside him and around allow him to be that man. This is how social animals are.

[Speaker to Animals]

What's a radical, or a "non-radical," individualist?

What makes it radical, or "hyper?"

I suggest we need some kind of simple definition of what you mean.

Deracinated shekel cuck better captures it.

[Fife]

In summary, it would be unbalanced to not give what the community has made traditional by way of custom and loyalties to give. A person is not "free" to live as he pleases. The man in the woods is only allowed to be the hermit he is b/c the community beside him and around allow him to be that man. This is how social animals are.

So "social animals" means the herd shall bend to the will of the "community" in all matters?

My community has a strong tradition of giving directly to Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Jewish, Catholic, Muslim, and several other churches. I don't know of anyone (although there might be) who gives to all of them.

How does the "community" decide what my exact religious giving should look like?

My community has a very strong tradition of giving to various types of food charities. How shall the community determine which ones I shall give to, and how much?

What is the permitting process like to become a "hermit?" What official license from the "community" do I need to live on my own land peacefully in whatever way I choose?