What has America become?

[cavaliereagle]

"if we dislike a black person, we’re racist and if a black person dislikes whites, its their 1st Amendment right"


Kind of an incoherent thought. First of all, I'm not sure disliking anyone even falls under the 1st Amendment. It strikes me in the strictest sense as something Orwell described as a "thought crime". I might dislike my neighbor and at the same time never tell anyone, including him, about my dislike. But that's getting a bit down in the weeds. Just thinking out loud here, btw.

Probably the most disturbing aspect of this sentence just jumped out at me only now. I've read this statement 3 or more times and given it some thought but it wasn't until I pasted it into this post did one of the more subtle notes of the statement occur to me. Read it one more time with an emphasis on certain words...

"If we dislike a black person, we're racist and if a black person dislikes whites it's their 1st Amendment right."

Interesting that the second part of the statement is worded, "dislikes whites" and not "dislikes us".

I mean, who is "we" in this statement? Is it "we" as in...



I don't think that's who the author meant when he said "we".

I think it's not that much of a stretch to reach the conclusion that the whole tone of this statement is basically a veiled complaint of an "us vs. them/black vs. white" perceived grievance. I'm super uncomfortable identifying with this remark (no pun intended). What's really deep here is that I don't think the wording was a clever dog whistle or coded message. It seems completely hypothalamic to me and not even worded that way on a conscious level. There's a lot of baggage that could have been detached from this statement by more carefully re-wording it thus...

"if a white person dislikes a black person, it's racism but if a black person dislikes a white person, it's their 1st Amendment."

For the record, let me reiterate....I completely missed that the first several times I read that statement and I point the finger at myself for that. It seems logical for me to deduce that there might be some latent privilege or form of unconscious group identity deeply embedded within me that just substituted "white people" for the word "we". Very interesting to me. In my estimation, it signals that we (all of us, not just white people as the statement originally implies) have a long way to go before we're free of group and racial identity.

I say group and racial because this "we" pronoun is a tricky little word. Even in the Constitution, it only implies "Americans" and that's only if you're willing to be very generous to the founding fathers. "We" all know what I'm referring to.

In any online group or forum, "we" can literally mean anything. Here it might refer to high school football fans, or Dorman fans, or Gaffney fans depending on what thread the word is used in. In other forums "we" might mean people who voted for Trump or people who voted for Biden, or Libertarians, men, women, trans, BLM members, Proud Boys, people afflicted with cancer, victims of sexual abuse....etc.

Anyway, having pointed that last bit out and offered a correction, I'll share my other thoughts on the statement.

Expressing a dislike for a black person isn't being a racist. If that were the case then anyone who posted negative comments about Victory6 is a racist including some black people who I know for a fact posted negative comments about Victory6. I disliked Ray Carruth, the wideout for the Panthers who was convicted of conspiring to have his pregnant girlfriend murdered. I mention him because when Chuck and I were younger and playing Madden 64 weekly in franchise mode, I insisted on trading Carruth off our fantasy roster on a moral and ethical basis. Chuck resisted because his stats were through the roof on the video game and argued reasonably that it was just only a game but eventually caved and got rid of the dude.

If a white person doesn't like a black person and is vocal about it, guess what? That's their first amendment right. If a black person doesn't a white person and is vocal about it, that's also their 1st Amendment right. If a white person calls a black person the N word, it's protected under the 1st Amendment. If a black person calls a white person a cracker or redneck, or more to the point a racist, that's their 1st Amendment right also. Look it up. Hate speech is protected under freedom of speech. You can dislike anyone you want for any reason that you want and call them just about anything you want. Here's the trick though....the second part of the statement is much more accurate than the first part of the statement. It's everyone's right under free speech to call anyone else a racist. For that reason, I try not to invite reasons for people to call me such a word. The person who wrote this editorial probably understands all this. Heard a good way to look at "rights". Everyone is always talking about their rights. George Carlin has a good piece on this. I try not to think of my rights as rights but as responsibilities. I don't have the right to own a gun. I have the responsibility to own a guy. People can dislike whoever they want. But why complain if people don't like you back?

Stop tiptoeing around the subject. Try and have a Miss White America and see what happens. Try having a white congressional caucus and see what happens. Try having a white entertainment television channel and see what happens. Say any life, other than black lives matter, and see what happens. Try and create a white scholarship fund and see what happens.

[DeCav]

If you go before Congress and lie, you will be charged. They will lie like a rug while you're there. Remember Schiff saying he had proof of Russian collusion? Prime example. I agree with the commentary.

Yeah, agreed. I might have been remiss in my comments. Was Schiff under oath when he said he had proof of Russian collusion? Or was he just orating on the House floor? Big difference.

Again I can meet a member of Congress on the capitol steps and lie to him like a dog. Or at a rally, or in a crossfire on a news program.

I can write McConnel a letter full of lies, sign it and mail it to him. And he can to the same thing to me.

Your example of Schiff actually proves my point. Schiff lied to the media and to America but under oath, the testimony showed no proof of collusion which is why Schiff refused to release the transcripts of the Congressional testimony.

Under oath there was no proof of Russian collusion. You’re correct, Schiff lied about the sealed transcripts. Because the sealed transcripts were not a lie. If he’d testified about what the investigation found then he’d be in legal jeopardy.

Can’t lie while testifying under oath whether you’re a Congressman, government employee, or just a regular citizen.

You can give sworn testimony and then go on TV and lie about what you said. It’s immoral and unethical but not against the law.

Luckily we have the same protections. I can lie to a cop or investigator all day long or all week long because I’m not giving sworn testimony.

Same reason so many Congressmen are on Capitol hill claiming evidence of voter fraud but in an impeachment trial Trump can’t put together a legal team because no lawyer is gonna risk purgery.

Now here’s what I don’t know. Last I saw, after SC’s legal team abandoned him on Saturday,2 other lawyers signed on while at the same time I’m reading reports that Trump will go it without legal representation.

The Senate has basically signaled that they won’t give enough votes to impeach no matter what. So all the President has to do is show up and either avoid giving any testimony at all or just not lie.

I’m guessing he can get away with lying and still not get an impeachment vote but then be charged with perjury after the impeachment trial is over?

I dunno. Near as I can tell, Trump is even managing to muck up his own impeachment trial. We all know (lol, all of us on SCPreptalk) that all that ding dong had to do was let his legal team argue that they can’t impeach a President who is already out of office. Then they avoid the subject of voter fraud.

If Trump is called to testify and can’t take the fifth he can say he was under the impression that there was voter fraud if asked and of course any sane person will argue that “it’ll be wild” and “fight” and “trial by combat” (Guliani) weren’t meant to be interpreted literally and that he never told anyone to storm the Capitol and break windows and doors and kill anyone.

At that point the Senate will vote to acquit and history and God will judge these men and if Trump isn’t stripped of the right to hold office he’ll run for a Congressional seat in two years and President in four.

I really don’t understand the game plan here. Quarter of a billion raised in December just to “Stop The Steal”. Does anyone feel like they’ve received a quarter billion dollars worth of legal representation? All that money got spent on 60 lost court cases, over half of which were before Trump appointed judges? And then a deadly siege on DC so embarrassing that most people in his base tried to say it was Antifa who stormed DC, not true Trump supporters?

The rally in DC cost half a million. $300,000 of that was donated by the daughter of the family that owns Publix.

Where’s the rest of the money?

Is it possible the Trump organization just pocketed it?

[cavaliereagle]

If you go before Congress and lie, you will be charged. They will lie like a rug while you're there. Remember Schiff saying he had proof of Russian collusion? Prime example. I agree with the commentary.

Yeah, agreed. I might have been remiss in my comments. Was Schiff under oath when he said he had proof of Russian collusion? Or was he just orating on the House floor? Big difference.

Again I can meet a member of Congress on the capitol steps and lie to him like a dog. Or at a rally, or in a crossfire on a news program.

I can write McConnel a letter full of lies, sign it and mail it to him. And he can to the same thing to me.

Your example of Schiff actually proves my point. Schiff lied to the media and to America but under oath, the testimony showed no proof of collusion which is why Schiff refused to release the transcripts of the Congressional testimony.

Under oath there was no proof of Russian collusion. You’re correct, Schiff lied about the sealed transcripts. Because the sealed transcripts were not a lie. If he’d testified about what the investigation found then he’d be in legal jeopardy.

Can’t lie while testifying under oath whether you’re a Congressman, government employee, or just a regular citizen.

You can give sworn testimony and then go on TV and lie about what you said. It’s immoral and unethical but not against the law.

Luckily we have the same protections. I can lie to a cop or investigator all day long or all week long because I’m not giving sworn testimony.

Same reason so many Congressmen are on Capitol hill claiming evidence of voter fraud but in an impeachment trial Trump can’t put together a legal team because no lawyer is gonna risk purgery.

Now here’s what I don’t know. Last I saw, after SC’s legal team abandoned him on Saturday,2 other lawyers signed on while at the same time I’m reading reports that Trump will go it without legal representation.

The Senate has basically signaled that they won’t give enough votes to impeach no matter what. So all the President has to do is show up and either avoid giving any testimony at all or just not lie.

I’m guessing he can get away with lying and still not get an impeachment vote but then be charged with perjury after the impeachment trial is over?

I dunno. Near as I can tell, Trump is even managing to muck up his own impeachment trial. We all know (lol, all of us on SCPreptalk) that all that ding dong had to do was let his legal team argue that they can’t impeach a President who is already out of office. Then they avoid the subject of voter fraud.

If Trump is called to testify and can’t take the fifth he can say he was under the impression that there was voter fraud if asked and of course any sane person will argue that “it’ll be wild” and “fight” and “trial by combat” (Guliani) weren’t meant to be interpreted literally and that he never told anyone to storm the Capitol and break windows and doors and kill anyone.

At that point the Senate will vote to acquit and history and God will judge these men and if Trump isn’t stripped of the right to hold office he’ll run for a Congressional seat in two years and President in four.

I really don’t understand the game plan here. Quarter of a billion raised in December just to “Stop The Steal”. Does anyone feel like they’ve received a quarter billion dollars worth of legal representation? All that money got spent on 60 lost court cases, over half of which were before Trump appointed judges? And then a deadly siege on DC so embarrassing that most people in his base tried to say it was Antifa who stormed DC, not true Trump supporters?

The rally in DC cost half a million. $300,000 of that was donated by the daughter of the family that owns Publix.

Where’s the rest of the money?

Is it possible the Trump organization just pocketed it?

My opinion only, but while in the chambers and the work of Congress, they should always be considered as under oath. If you go before them, you have to be under oath. If you can't lie in the chamber, they shouldn't be allowed to either. They are paid!

[cavaliereagle]

If you go before Congress and lie, you will be charged. They will lie like a rug while you're there. Remember Schiff saying he had proof of Russian collusion? Prime example. I agree with the commentary.

Yeah, agreed. I might have been remiss in my comments. Was Schiff under oath when he said he had proof of Russian collusion? Or was he just orating on the House floor? Big difference.

Again I can meet a member of Congress on the capitol steps and lie to him like a dog. Or at a rally, or in a crossfire on a news program.

I can write McConnel a letter full of lies, sign it and mail it to him. And he can to the same thing to me.

Your example of Schiff actually proves my point. Schiff lied to the media and to America but under oath, the testimony showed no proof of collusion which is why Schiff refused to release the transcripts of the Congressional testimony.

Under oath there was no proof of Russian collusion. You’re correct, Schiff lied about the sealed transcripts. Because the sealed transcripts were not a lie. If he’d testified about what the investigation found then he’d be in legal jeopardy.

Can’t lie while testifying under oath whether you’re a Congressman, government employee, or just a regular citizen.

You can give sworn testimony and then go on TV and lie about what you said. It’s immoral and unethical but not against the law.

Luckily we have the same protections. I can lie to a cop or investigator all day long or all week long because I’m not giving sworn testimony.

Same reason so many Congressmen are on Capitol hill claiming evidence of voter fraud but in an impeachment trial Trump can’t put together a legal team because no lawyer is gonna risk purgery.

Now here’s what I don’t know. Last I saw, after SC’s legal team abandoned him on Saturday,2 other lawyers signed on while at the same time I’m reading reports that Trump will go it without legal representation.

The Senate has basically signaled that they won’t give enough votes to impeach no matter what. So all the President has to do is show up and either avoid giving any testimony at all or just not lie.

I’m guessing he can get away with lying and still not get an impeachment vote but then be charged with perjury after the impeachment trial is over?

I dunno. Near as I can tell, Trump is even managing to muck up his own impeachment trial. We all know (lol, all of us on SCPreptalk) that all that ding dong had to do was let his legal team argue that they can’t impeach a President who is already out of office. Then they avoid the subject of voter fraud.

If Trump is called to testify and can’t take the fifth he can say he was under the impression that there was voter fraud if asked and of course any sane person will argue that “it’ll be wild” and “fight” and “trial by combat” (Guliani) weren’t meant to be interpreted literally and that he never told anyone to storm the Capitol and break windows and doors and kill anyone.

At that point the Senate will vote to acquit and history and God will judge these men and if Trump isn’t stripped of the right to hold office he’ll run for a Congressional seat in two years and President in four.

I really don’t understand the game plan here. Quarter of a billion raised in December just to “Stop The Steal”. Does anyone feel like they’ve received a quarter billion dollars worth of legal representation? All that money got spent on 60 lost court cases, over half of which were before Trump appointed judges? And then a deadly siege on DC so embarrassing that most people in his base tried to say it was Antifa who stormed DC, not true Trump supporters?

The rally in DC cost half a million. $300,000 of that was donated by the daughter of the family that owns Publix.

Where’s the rest of the money?

Is it possible the Trump organization just pocketed it?

In my thoughts, that money should have to be accounted for. Seems like it would be treated like campaign contributions.

[1 CAT FAN]

"if we dislike a black person, we’re racist and if a black person dislikes whites, its their 1st Amendment right"


Kind of an incoherent thought. First of all, I'm not sure disliking anyone even falls under the 1st Amendment. It strikes me in the strictest sense as something Orwell described as a "thought crime". I might dislike my neighbor and at the same time never tell anyone, including him, about my dislike. But that's getting a bit down in the weeds. Just thinking out loud here, btw.

Probably the most disturbing aspect of this sentence just jumped out at me only now. I've read this statement 3 or more times and given it some thought but it wasn't until I pasted it into this post did one of the more subtle notes of the statement occur to me. Read it one more time with an emphasis on certain words...

"If we dislike a black person, we're racist and if a black person dislikes whites it's their 1st Amendment right."

Interesting that the second part of the statement is worded, "dislikes whites" and not "dislikes us".

I mean, who is "we" in this statement? Is it "we" as in...



I don't think that's who the author meant when he said "we".

I think it's not that much of a stretch to reach the conclusion that the whole tone of this statement is basically a veiled complaint of an "us vs. them/black vs. white" perceived grievance. I'm super uncomfortable identifying with this remark (no pun intended). What's really deep here is that I don't think the wording was a clever dog whistle or coded message. It seems completely hypothalamic to me and not even worded that way on a conscious level. There's a lot of baggage that could have been detached from this statement by more carefully re-wording it thus...

"if a white person dislikes a black person, it's racism but if a black person dislikes a white person, it's their 1st Amendment."

For the record, let me reiterate....I completely missed that the first several times I read that statement and I point the finger at myself for that. It seems logical for me to deduce that there might be some latent privilege or form of unconscious group identity deeply embedded within me that just substituted "white people" for the word "we". Very interesting to me. In my estimation, it signals that we (all of us, not just white people as the statement originally implies) have a long way to go before we're free of group and racial identity.

I say group and racial because this "we" pronoun is a tricky little word. Even in the Constitution, it only implies "Americans" and that's only if you're willing to be very generous to the founding fathers. "We" all know what I'm referring to.

In any online group or forum, "we" can literally mean anything. Here it might refer to high school football fans, or Dorman fans, or Gaffney fans depending on what thread the word is used in. In other forums "we" might mean people who voted for Trump or people who voted for Biden, or Libertarians, men, women, trans, BLM members, Proud Boys, people afflicted with cancer, victims of sexual abuse....etc.

Anyway, having pointed that last bit out and offered a correction, I'll share my other thoughts on the statement.

Expressing a dislike for a black person isn't being a racist. If that were the case then anyone who posted negative comments about Victory6 is a racist including some black people who I know for a fact posted negative comments about Victory6. I disliked Ray Carruth, the wideout for the Panthers who was convicted of conspiring to have his pregnant girlfriend murdered. I mention him because when Chuck and I were younger and playing Madden 64 weekly in franchise mode, I insisted on trading Carruth off our fantasy roster on a moral and ethical basis. Chuck resisted because his stats were through the roof on the video game and argued reasonably that it was just only a game but eventually caved and got rid of the dude.

If a white person doesn't like a black person and is vocal about it, guess what? That's their first amendment right. If a black person doesn't a white person and is vocal about it, that's also their 1st Amendment right. If a white person calls a black person the N word, it's protected under the 1st Amendment. If a black person calls a white person a cracker or redneck, or more to the point a racist, that's their 1st Amendment right also. Look it up. Hate speech is protected under freedom of speech. You can dislike anyone you want for any reason that you want and call them just about anything you want. Here's the trick though....the second part of the statement is much more accurate than the first part of the statement. It's everyone's right under free speech to call anyone else a racist. For that reason, I try not to invite reasons for people to call me such a word. The person who wrote this editorial probably understands all this. Heard a good way to look at "rights". Everyone is always talking about their rights. George Carlin has a good piece on this. I try not to think of my rights as rights but as responsibilities. I don't have the right to own a gun. I have the responsibility to own a guy. People can dislike whoever they want. But why complain if people don't like you back?

Stop tiptoeing around the subject. Try and have a Miss White America and see what happens. Try having a white congressional caucus and see what happens. Try having a white entertainment television channel and see what happens. Say any life, other than black lives matter, and see what happens. Try and create a white scholarship fund and see what happens.

What is good for the goose may not be good for the gander? Or is that the other way around? Oh well, there's no preference, they're both eatable. Then again, I've never had goose or gander, that I'm aware of.

[DeCav]

You guys have a perfect point, of course. No argument there. If they have black history month, then why not have a white history month?

I can’t not tiptoe around race relations, especially since I’m white. Do I have white privilege? I’m inclined to think I do but guess what? Ol’ Dr. Peterson would say otherwise. He’s an interesting cat. The left can’t stand him at all and he gets accused all of the time for being a darling of the alt right.

Had a chat with a fellow WAY to the left of me on Facebook. I thought me and him were pretty well aligned politically and that’s why I pm’d him on FB. I wanted to talk politics off the record with him. Turned out he already knew everything and I apparently had no useful information to share with him.

As a matter of fact, I was dead wrong about several of my opinions.

Leo Gallagher: “I once got an F in school on a test that asked my opinion!”

Anyway, you guys have never met a know-it-all before I’m sure. Of course I’m being tongue in cheek. I get accused of being just that all the time. To be sure, the more I learn the more I realize how little I know in life. That’s why I like having these conversations and why I especially appreciate everyone chiming in with their opinions and especially with their contributions of facts and POVs that I haven’t encountered before.

I’m taking a tangent here of course but two things this liberal tried to tell me as a matter of fact, without ANY nuance whatsoever was that...
1) Jordan Peterson was a complete whack job. He was wrong headed that he couldn’t even manage to be “not even right.”

In JP’s book, “12 Rules For Life”: Rule 9: Assume That The Person You Are Listening To Might Know Something You Don’t. “Because they do!”

Clearly this dude on FB, (Sean Prophet is his name) has a problem making that assumption. Clearly I have that problem making that assumption. Clearly most people have difficulty making that assumption or it wouldn’t be necessary to point that out in a book, yes?

2) There is no such thing as “the radical left” in America.

Let me be clear here. This is the radically blind and naive observation of Sean Prophet. But here’s a funny azz development to that conversation....

OMG!!!



He just blocked me on Facebook!!!

Ok, who all on this site is on Facebook?

Wanna have some fun poking a radical left liberal? One who claims that not only is there no radical left but that if there was, he wouldn’t be it?

And then when cornered about what he defines as radical admits that it’s not too radical for him?

And then when that observation is pointed out he blocks me?




For your enjoyment while I compose my next tangent...

[DeCav]

I agree about having to be truthful in the House or Senate for Congress.

I’ve witnessed enough bald face lying and bullcrap from Congressmen in the last 5 years to last a lifetime. Having them under oath sure seems like it would save a lot of time doesn’t it?

Anyone have any arguments against it? There must be a good reason why they’re not under oath on the floor.

I wonder if it’s because there was no live news or cspan back in the day? The electorate had to have a written record of debates on the floor so that they had something to help them understand how politicized were hashing things out?

Now politicians just go on the news and debate and litigate their arguments with lies, bluster, and ultimate theater. Seems redundant to then just repeat it on the floor.

[DeCav]

Stop tiptoeing around the subject. Try and have a Miss White America and see what happens. Try having a white congressional caucus and see what happens. Try having a white entertainment television channel and see what happens. Say any life, other than black lives matter, and see what happens. Try and create a white scholarship fund and see what happens.

I guess all I have to say on the issue is this...

One Mother’s Day, probably when I was maybe six or seven years old, I asked my mom why there was a Mother’s Day but not a son’s day.

Never will forget what she said. I never pondered the question again. You guys can make of it what you will.

She said, “Have you ever thought that every other day of the year is your day?”

But seriously, if we're going to be fair and balanced, if there's a Mother's Day, and Father's Day, why not a son's day and daughter's day?

[1 CAT FAN]

Heard a couple of phrases recently.

"Have the courage to accept the things we can not control, and have the courage to change the things we can control."

"There's nothing so gentle as real strength, and there's nothing so strong as real gentleness."

[DeCav]

Heard a couple of phrases recently.

"Have the courage to accept the things we can not control, and have the courage to change the things we can control."

"There's nothing so gentle as real strength, and there's nothing so strong as real gentleness."

Yes, the first is obviously the serenity prayer from the 12 step program.

“God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference.”

Not sure but I think it predates Al Anon.

Looked it up and the author is apparently this guy....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinhold_Niebuhr


Interestingly enough, one of Neil Peart's favorite authors also thought it was a brilliant prayer even though she was an avowed atheist...

The Serenity Prayer and Why Ayn Rand Liked It
Aaron Smith
October 7, 2019 2 min read
“God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference.”

This famous “Serenity Prayer” is cited by self-help websites, addiction recovery programs, church ministers, and even modern practitioners of Stoic philosophy as containing a deeply important perspective for us to hold as we navigate life.

But to benefit from the perspective suggested by the prayer we need to know what things (if any) are in our power to change, what things are not, and how to tell the difference. On these questions, however, the prayer is silent.

In her essay “The Metaphysical versus the Man-Made,” Ayn Rand (philosopher and well-known atheist) comments on the Serenity Prayer. After citing the prayer, she writes:

This remarkable statement is attributed to a theologian with whose ideas I disagree in every fundamental respect: Reinhold Niebuhr. But — omitting the form of a prayer, i.e., the implication that one’s mental-emotional states [serenity, courage, wisdom] are a gift from God — that statement is profoundly true, as a summary and a guideline: it names the mental attitude which a rational man must seek to achieve. The statement is beautiful in its eloquent simplicity but the achievement of that attitude involves philosophy’s deepest metaphysical-moral issues.

What Rand proceeds to argue in the essay is that the mental attitude merely wished for in the prayer is one that we must achieve through our own efforts — and she explains what is required to achieve it. Central to that argument is a thesis regularly denied by many secular thinkers today, namely that we have free will, and that we shape our lives and moral character through the choices we make in life.

For Rand’s perspective on the issues raised (but not fulfilled) by the Serenity Prayer, read Rand’s essay. It is one of my personal favorites — both for the seriousness with which Rand approaches the struggles we face in life and for the guidance it offers us for our endeavors and aspirations.

The second statement is remarkably similar to a theme that 'you know who' leans into very strongly, which is that a harmless man isn't virtuous. He's just harmless.

There's another fascinating take on the theme that you have to be dangerous and strong to be genuinely kind is a notion that I've only recently discovered. My first attempt to confirm it failed because I was looking in the wrong places but "seek and you shall find."

"Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth"

The modern dictionary defines meek thus:

quiet, gentle, and easily imposed on; submissive.

But if you dig a little more on the word you find it has evolved into the definition we associate with the word today which is basically, "harmless".

Obviously, the word meek is a very very old word and the currently accepted definition belies the deeper meaning of the word...

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Meekness is an attribute of human nature and behavior. It has been defined several ways: righteous, humble, teachable, and patient under suffering, long suffering willing to follow gospel teachings; an attribute of a true disciple.

Meekness has been contrasted with humility as referring to behavior towards others, whereas humility refers to an attitude towards oneself – meekness meaning restraining one's own power, so as to allow room for others.

Christianity
The Apostle Paul gave an example of meek behavior when writing to Timothy: "The servant of the Lord must be gentle, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves." (2 Tim. 2:24–25)

Sir Thomas Browne explained: "Meekness takes injuries like pills, not chewing, but swallowing them down." This indicates that meekness allows a person to overlook or forgive perceived insults or offenses.

Buddhism, like Christianity, strongly values meekness – the Buddha himself (in an earlier life) featuring as the 'Preacher of Meekness' who patiently had his limbs lopped off by a jealous king without complaining.

So there's a lot of nuance there for the word meek. In the Buddhist sense, it speaks to me especially when I'm with small children or around adult children (people I've worked with) who whine all the time. It's funny to think that when you tell someone to "suck it up" or "walk it off", you're actually telling them in the Buddhist sense to be meek. And under the surface of the word then is a sense of strength and fortitude.

Peterson claimed that a very old definition of the word was something like, "One who has a mighty sword but keeps it sheathed." I have a funny story to tell that I was just reminded of. How am I going to connect the dots between James Bond, the word "meek", and a pepper grinder?

Anyway, I'll copy a bit of an article and then link to the rest of it...

"The Bible says, ‘Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth’. However, as Peterson has pointed out, biblical meekness doesn’t mean being passive or weak. A warrior of the meek is not without the potential for harm, even if he or she ‘keeps his sword in his sheath’ — which is one translation of biblical meekness. To be meek here means to act with mercy and intelligence, to know how to diffuse the potential for violence and war."

"The ‘social justice warrior’ has become a favorite description of a naïve kind of activism, which Peterson has railed against. And yet Peterson is concerned with social justice and he is obviously in a fight for truth. So what kind of social justice warrior is Peterson then? Let’s call him a ‘Warrior of the Meek’, a term invented by Chogyam Trungpa. The warrior of the meek embodies both the fierce aspect of a real warrior (the ability to make war) and the gentle aspect (the ability to make peace). He or she knows that there can be no justice without mercy or meekness — and that real meekness cannot exist without fierce intelligence and competent judgement."

Clearly I was a kinder person and more predisposed to being a peacemaker before my friend and brother died and everything else fell apart, most of it by my own design eventually. I think this is the message about being meek that I've forgotten. I really have to figure out how to get back to that place.

And this part is demonstrably true...

"Peterson seems like a reactionary to some — leftists shriek in terror at the very mention of his name. They wrongly believe that he is right-wing, which can be easily debunked by a serious study of any of his works."

This is true!

If you want to see if you're dealing with a dunder-headed liberal or someone who has a high degree of trait openness, just mention the dudes name!



Someone got triggered. I wasn't trolling. Just pointing out that he wasn't making any sense and I got blocked for it.