Win uses cookies necessary for site functionality, as well as for personalization. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies as described in our Privacy Policy.
A huge part of his life has been studying totalitarian, tyrannical regimes, namely communism and nazism. They guy knows what he's talking about and I think he'd very much agree today that the left has completely lost control.
It's important that we don't ALSO lose control in response to them.
I think Peterson and Reagan speak in the same spirit here. It really depends on how you interpret things.
To my mind, when Peterson says "Don't aim to win, aim at peace", it is not contrary to what Reagan is saying. Peterson is simply saying that we shouldn't devolve into madness, much like the left has, but instead try and maintain a level head and do what's right. IF, in this process, we find ourselves having to defend our rights and beliefs, then so be it, but the important thing is that we don't fight for the wrong reasons. We don't fight to win, we fight for peace, for whats right.
So those two aren't exclusive to my mind.
EDIT: To clarify, when he says "aim for peace" and I interpret as "fight for peace", that does NOT mean, concede to the enemy whatever they want, or anything that weakens me at all for that matter, but rather, fight for peace in the same sense that Reagan is describing. Crush what's wrong with the world so that what's right may flourish. We just should fight with an ego similar to that of the left, like "Ha ha, look at us you losers, we're gonna completely anihilate you!", rather "You're wrong, and I'm gonna try and prove to you that you're wrong and if you're too ignorant to see the truth and the right in the world, then I'll have no choice to destroy you in pursuit of peace". That's kind of what I mean. I sensed my initial explanation may not have been too great.
God bless this man.
A huge part of his life has been studying totalitarian, tyrannical regimes, namely communism and nazism. They guy knows what he's talking about and I think he'd very much agree today that the left has completely lost control.
It's important that we don't ALSO lose control in response to them.
I don't know what to think of him after this:
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1048320826376740865
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1048374221355667456
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/10/07/jordan-peterson-kavanaugh-should-step-down-from-supreme-court-to-have-his-name-cleared/
"Don't aim to win, aim at peace" is a super Canadian thing to say.
I prefer Reagan's view on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR33JsDL13M
I think Peterson and Reagan speak in the same spirit here. It really depends on how you interpret things.
To my mind, when Peterson says "Don't aim to win, aim at peace", it is not contrary to what Reagan is saying. Peterson is simply saying that we shouldn't devolve into madness, much like the left has, but instead try and maintain a level head and do what's right. IF, in this process, we find ourselves having to defend our rights and beliefs, then so be it, but the important thing is that we don't fight for the wrong reasons. We don't fight to win, we fight for peace, for whats right.
So those two aren't exclusive to my mind.
EDIT: To clarify, when he says "aim for peace" and I interpret as "fight for peace", that does NOT mean, concede to the enemy whatever they want, or anything that weakens me at all for that matter, but rather, fight for peace in the same sense that Reagan is describing. Crush what's wrong with the world so that what's right may flourish. We just should fight with an ego similar to that of the left, like "Ha ha, look at us you losers, we're gonna completely anihilate you!", rather "You're wrong, and I'm gonna try and prove to you that you're wrong and if you're too ignorant to see the truth and the right in the world, then I'll have no choice to destroy you in pursuit of peace". That's kind of what I mean. I sensed my initial explanation may not have been too great.