26 ms·

As a christian I believe in mercy and grace. And yes, many of us 'believers' have not practised what we preached. Many of us do try however not to be hypocrites

• lemmsjid 5y ago
  I think the answer to your question is actually answered in your first paragraph. In the same way that you believe all Christians shouldn’t be judged by those who haven’t “practiced what they’ve preached”, consider that your understanding of “woke” people might be tainted by the fact that whatever media you are consuming might be focusing on the ones who also don’t practice what they preach. In other words, any movement, Christian or “woke”, will have a subset of people who are hypocritical and/or ruthless. It is an easily observed behavior of biased media outlets that they will pay especial attention to the more unsavory outliers of a movement.
  • sokoloff 5y ago
    Though this is undoubtedly good for click-rewarded media, it’s also good for society if it invokes a rejection of the extremists and unsavory outliers both from outside and within the community, whether woke extremists, Christian Taliban, or other. Unfortunately, I don’t see quite strong enough (for my taste) version of that repudiation (in general across both causes I believe in and ones where I disagree).
  • kortilla 5y ago
    But the core principles of being woke require ruthlessness (“silence is violence”, etc).
    • ggggoz 5y ago
      What are the core principles of being woke?
      • plexman 5y ago
        No idea, but i love McWhorter ideas https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDlmSn3aGYU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDlmSn3aGYU
        • ggggoz 5y ago
          You don’t know the core principles of the thing you want to cancel? What do you know about the thing you want to cancel?
          • MonkeyClub 5y ago
            That generally isn't necessary in cancel culture. Generic outrage suffices. /s
          • mpweiher 5y ago
            How are the core principles relevant? Look at outcomes.
        • octonion 5y ago
          Why would you ask someone who doesn't understand a concept to explain it?
          • SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
            You would certainly ask someone who despises a concept to explain what it is that they dislike. Major red flags if they cannot.
          • ggggoz 5y ago
            I don’t know about you, but I try avoid hating that which I do not understand.
  • notacoward 5y ago
    Exactly. It's selection bias, ruthlessly exploited by people who have their own agenda and therefore an interest in focusing attention on the worst excesses of those who resist (continued) imposition of that agenda. What might that agenda be? Here's a hint. A certain "shadow docket" decision by the US Supreme Court has been in the news a bit lately. As it turns out, all five of the concurring justices are Catholic, and under pressure (e.g. threats of being denied communion) to decide as they did. That pressure should have been grounds for recusal, but of course none of the five had the decency to do that. Where's the "mercy and grace" in that law? What "woke" group is doing that much harm to that many people's lives?
    • busymom0 5y ago
      Selection bias? My province in Ontario literally changed the curriculum for mathematics claiming mathematics is subjective and colonial and all other woke nonsense. You mean to tell me I am not seeing what I am really seeing?
      • notacoward 5y ago
        Thank you for providing an example of the selective presentation (exploiting selection bias) I was talking about. Here's the official version of the current Ontario curriculum guidelines, for anyone to read. https://www.dcp.edu.gov.on.ca/en/curriculum/secondary-mathematics/courses/mth1w/course-intro https://www.dcp.edu.gov.on.ca/en/curriculum/secondary-mathem... There's a bunch of stuff about how the teaching of mathematics has been used to normalize racism and marginalization etc., but that's not the same as mathematics itself being subjective or colonial. (Personally I think even the stuff about teaching is kind of garbage because it's vague and non-actionable, but that's a different discussion.) A cherry-picked, exaggerated description like that is exactly the kind of selective presentation I was talking about. You have received a distorted view, and are now passing that on to others.
        • deleted 5y ago
          [deleted]
        • 5y ago
  • busymom0 5y ago
    It isn’t just the media. Here in Canada, the government literally passed the mathematics curriculum which claimed nonsense like “mathematics is subjective” and “mathematics is colonial”. I emailed them a long rant that I would rather ship my future kids to India for a better education instead of the nonsense they are teaching. So no, it isn’t just some media. Nor do I follow corporate news.
    • rayusher 5y ago
      "There's plenty of room for subjective opinion in mathematics. It usually doesn't concern questions of the form Is this true? since we have a good consensus how to recognize an acceptable proof and which assumptions for such a proof you need to state explicitly. As soon as we move onwards to Is this useful? and Is this interesting?, or even Is this likely to work?, subjectivity hits us in full force. Even in pure mathematics, it's easy to choose a set of axioms and derive consequences from them, but if you want anyone to spend time reading your work, you need to tackle the subjective questions and have an explanation why what you're doing is either useful or interesting, or preferably both. In applied math, these questions are accompanied by Is this the best way to model such-and-such real-world problem? -- where "best" again comes down to usefulness (does the model answer questions we need to have answered?) and interest (does the model give us any insight about the situation we wouldn't have without it?). The subjective questions are important in research, but can also arise at more elementary level. The high-school teacher who chooses to devote several lessons to presenting Cardano's method for solving the generic third-degree equation will certainly have to answer his students' questions why this is useful or interesting. Perhaps he has an answer. Perhaps he has an answer that the students don't agree with. In that case, he cannot look for a deductive argument concluding that Cardano's formula is interesting -- he'll have to appeal to emotions, curiosity, all of those fluffy touchy-feely considerations that we need to use to tackle subjective questions." https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1354044/can-math-be-subjective#:~:text=Every%20single%20statement%2C%20question%2C%20and%20claim%20in%20mathematics,arbitrary%2C%20and%20are%20picked%20to%20observe%20their%20consequences https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1354044/can-math-be....
    • notacoward 5y ago
      No, they didn't. Here's the real thing again. https://www.dcp.edu.gov.on.ca/en/curriculum/secondary-mathematics/courses/mth1w/course-intro https://www.dcp.edu.gov.on.ca/en/curriculum/secondary-mathem... My (slightly) more detailed response is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28415992 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28415992 Stop spreading misinformation.
• npteljes 5y ago
  Wokeness is not unique in having people like that. As with any group of significance, there's some included that actively weaponize it. And also many people are new to it. I experienced this first-hand when I was introduces to something that was new and exciting to me, that suddenly everything I did was about that thing, and that I was doing everything to further my experience with it. I feel like some people do that with wokeness too, pushing it as far as they can with this momentum. Which is experienced as ruthlessness from the outside.
  • UK-Al05 5y ago
    I mean critical theories critique liberalism. So it's not just a few people. The movements intellectual basis has a critique of liberalism at its core.
• ceilingcorner 5y ago
  Wokeness is essentially a New England Puritan movement with some minor modifications. Even the sources (Ivy Leagues) are the same. If you view it through this lens, the lack of tolerance and crusader zeal becomes very apparent. It is perhaps the exact opposite of libertarianism. Edit: some Puritan libertarians do not like this comment :)
  • pphysch 5y ago
    "Wokeness" (liberal universalism) is actually closely related to libertarianism. It's really just the same Western, individualistic, idealistic, Christian worldview and values applied at different societal scales, generating different conclusions. Small scale rural (or elite)? These values manifest as libertarianism. Big scale urban? These values manifest as liberal universalism, or "wokeness".
    • ceilingcorner 5y ago
      Not at all. The woke thing is not liberal universalism, because it is actively hostile to any competing ideologies or definitions. That makes it explicitly anti-libertarian.
      • pphysch 5y ago
        That's where the "universalism" piece comes from. It's the belief that deep down everyone on the planet is a liberal, and is therefore hostile to other ways of thinking. Yes, superficially it is very different to libertarianism. But stick a libertarian in a big city for a few years and they will realize how silly libertarianism is (there's too many people for it) and transition into a liberal universalist.
        • ceilingcorner 5y ago
          Sorry but I think they are entirely different things with entirely different lineages. Woke comes from the Puritans, (American) libertarians come from the Western frontier.
• pjc50 5y ago
  > I don't want to introduce laws to force you to believe what I believe 20th century America has spent years doing exactly this. It's still ongoing in Texas right at the minute. People have been fired for being atheist. Children are send to indoctrination camps for "gay conversion therapy" if they are suspected of homosexuality, a practice which leads some of them to commit suicide. Rein in your fellow Christians and things might calm down.
  • rdtwo 5y ago
    So 2 wrongs make a right got it
• sandworm101 5y ago
  >> don't want you to lose your job because you don't agree with me. But lots of people want that power. It is within living memory that people could be fired or denied employment based on thier religion. Many today still want thier religion beliefs to be enforced against believers and non-believers alike (abortion, education, marriage, adoption, right to die etc). Not every person of faith is so liberal about the affairs of others. Many call for a return to a past where religious "values" were enforced by the state at the point of a sword.
  • clusterfish 5y ago
    > But lots of people want that power. And most of us agree that it's bad. But most of us somehow don't agree that forcing wokeness on others is bad. Because the woke ones can't possibly imagine being wrong. Theirs is the right way, everyone else are bigots and racists. It's an aggressive religion, a cult even.
    • hirako2000 5y ago
      True that. I was told to shut it at work, and not just in a private 1 on 1, and nobody moved. corportate American and their employees cowardice in action Behind curtains of course. No reporter to come ask. The signs of tyrany are clear.
    • SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
      That’s only the woke people you hear about. I consider myself pretty woke and the only woke thing I could imagine to demand from a workplace is sexual harassment policies with real teeth. (And not a he said she said scenario but Eg. Dont pinch the ass of your direct report against their consent or else you’re out of the door). I think there are people who take it too far just like there are people who take anything too far. But clearly to me wokeness hasn’t stopped Eg. Blizzard-Activision for all their woke PR so I’m skeptical that wokeness has nearly as much influence as is often implied.
      • foolinaround 5y ago
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• heresie-dabord 5y ago
  > Where is mercy and grace in the midst of wokeness? Friend, to be frank, I don't see any way that beliefs in providence and deferred reward can even begin to explain economics. (And I daresay this is by intent.) Consider this definition from the article: > injustice will persist until systems of language and privilege are dismantled From a clear reading of history and world events, you can see that terrible wrongs have been mercilessly committed for profit. Today, if it is hard to discuss these problems, it is in part because the topics have been so well buried, and honest discourse is a forgotten social principle, replaced by social media.
  • ungamedplayer 5y ago
    Language and privilege will never be dismantled, nor should it be. Any suggestion to do so runs dangerously close to devolution.
    • ungamedplayer 5y ago
      I'm downvoted because discussion is not a priority on this site.
• nonameiguess 5y ago
  You may personally believe in mercy and grace and not forcing people to be Christian, but historically, the entire reason Christianity is so prevalent is Christians traveled to other continents with guns and forcibly slaughtered or enslaved the natives if they didn't convert and took their children away and forced them into Christian schools. Whatever you think of "wokeness," it isn't anywhere near a level of world-conquering forced gunpoint mass conversion.
  • zpeti 5y ago
    > the entire reason Maybe it’s a teeny weeny more complex than that? Plenty of cultures and religions that did the same don’t exist any more. So I don’t think killing heretics and taking their children is a guarantee to success for a religion.
    • nonameiguess 5y ago
      Christian dominance in Europe coincided with a period of several centuries where European explorers and colonialists also had far better ships and firepower than everyone else. Other cultures that attempted the same thing never had a monopoly on global reach. Thus, things like Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, the Persian Empire, Islamic Caliphate, they were all inherently regional, even if they managed to span very large regions. European Christians were the first to be able to do this while having trans-oceanic shipping capabilities. It's not to say it'll be permanent or anything. All cultures and religions eventually don't exist any more. Christianity will be no different. It's also not to say Christianity is uniquely evil or anything. I don't believe that at all. But I don't find it particularly convincing to try and contrast some unique lack of charity toward non-believers on the part of wokeness with "I, as a Christian." Christianity may exist in the world at large for many reasons, possibly even the minuscule chance there is some small kernel of non-literal truth in the claim that believing Jesus Christ was the human incarnation of God sent to Earth so he could sacrifice himself to himself to redeem mankind of the otherwise unforgivable sin of being descended from people who ate a special fruit somewhere in Mesopotamia 6,000 years ago, and accepting this truth is the only way to avoid spending eternity being engulfed by metaphorical flame, but it certainly only exists in the Americas because of cultural and literal genocides committed against the non-Christian people who were already here before you. It's the only reason I have a Spanish name and Catholic family. And I don't resent it. It's the way history works. It's fine. But I don't want to see Christians or anyone else sitting on some high horse pretending they're uniquely charitable and graceful, and it's only those other people who are your ideological enemies that are the real fascists. Step back for a few moments of strong self-reflection whenever you feel yourself being seduced by that belief. It goes for the woke, too. I'm not saying they're great, either, but they haven't forcefully conquered four remote continents yet.
• htns 5y ago
  Probably one of the reasons Western Europe diverges from the US, despite the academic scene being similar and even more entrenched, is that the conservative bogeyman in Europe was smaller.
  • lupire 5y ago
    "bogeyman" is an imaginary threat, not the dominant culture entrenched by law of the country.
  • shadilay 5y ago
    The reason Western Europe diverged academically is the woke academics fled Europe in the 40's.
• AbrahamParangi 5y ago
  Under the woke philosophy the criterion for deserving forgiveness still exists but is changed. In classical Christian philosophy, forgiveness requires contrition whereas under woke philosophy forgiveness requires powerlessness. This is often misinterpreted as an absence of forgiveness because no amount of contrition seems to abate the condemnation.
  • darkerside 5y ago
    Not sure who downvoted you, but I found this to be an incredibly insightful comment. Possibly one that conservative (anti-woke) voices might benefit from hearing. Not that it seems like you were taking a side here.
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  • GavinMcG 5y ago
    I think you're redefining things. Since no amount of contrition abates the condemnation, there is an absence of forgiveness. Powerlessness doesn't abate the condemnation either, after all. Instead, these people who refuse to forgive do so because they feel that forgiveness has been used to excuse abuse (read broadly) and to keep abusers in power. In other words, it's all about power, and forgiveness just doesn't feature.
    • PontifexMinimus 5y ago
      > Since no amount of contrition abates the condemnation, there is an absence of forgiveness. I agree. Wokism is protestant Christianity without foregivness: https://pontifex.substack.com/p/no-redemption-for-the-woke https://pontifex.substack.com/p/no-redemption-for-the-woke
      • thinkingemote 5y ago
        Worth also noticing that it comes from the USA where justice is punishment and vindication for the victim. It's why victims and their families are invited to be present when a criminal is killed via the death penalty, and ex cons can't vote. Eye for an eye is very American. Is it old protestant and puritan? Possibly, I'm not sure of the origins. Even the Soviets thoughts that prisoners could be rehabilitated (in principle), and we can consider the Nordic prison model for a more contemporary example. Even English criminology is more about reform than punishment. Often victims feel sidelined because of this. American justice in general doesn't have this sense of rehabilitation being more important than vindication. Justice is retribution by the victim on both right and left wings. I posit that this is why the US is struggling with the "woke", it's because the methods and tactics are seen as normal. Explains a lot about the foreign policy too...
• ggggoz 5y ago
  Is there an example you have in mind? That is, an example of a dissenting view point being treated ruthlessly?
  • SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
    I recall a researcher who lost his job for publishing research that violence on black lives by police was only covered by the media when the media understood them as sympathetic victims and so a successful strategy is to intentionally play up the helplessness of being violenced upon as opposed to militant resistance and cooperative resistance. I believe the rage about it at the time was more or less how dare this person try to finger waggle how black people can effectively protest. But the study itself was fairly milquetoast.
    • ggggoz 5y ago
      David Shor? It seems he was sacked for reducing black grief and anger to nothing more than a bad campaign strategy for the democrats in the wake of George Floyd’s murder. It wasn’t a smart thing to tweet, given that he worked for a political org. Should he have been sacked? I don’t know.
      • CryptoPunk 5y ago
        No, he shouldn't have been sacked. That the acceptability of this is even contemplated shows the extremism of woke moral elitism.
• ctrlp 5y ago
  Identity politics is a Marxist revolutionary movement. As Lenin pointed out, in the Revolution, morality is subsumed in politics and Revolutionary violence is not actual violence, or rather, it is not immoral. The is no mercy to be shown to anyone who obstructs the Revolution. Phase I of the Revolution is to destroy the values of the "oppressive" preexisting order. Phase II is the realization of the promised Utopia, which of course never happens. We are in the logically necessary nadir of nihilism where no values can claim universality. This could be considered the antithesis of Christianity. The woke are the intellectual vanguard of the Revolution when they are self-conscious of their historical role. Most are simply unwitting foot soldiers pushing this revolution forward like ants, without understanding. Many are simply aspirational elites playing the power game for petty stakes. Some are true believers. If you want to understand what the world looks like when morality is subsumed under politics, consider the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century, for which that was a defining feature. The woke are playing a dangerous game, supported by the ruling elites who are thinking they can control this. Are they right? We'll see. There were plenty of elites who thought they could control the revolutionary forces they were harnessing to gain or keep power.
  • sbmassey 5y ago
    It is anti-Marxist, in that Marxism requires that the whole proletarian class of a society unite, whereas wokism pretty much guarantees that society will be shattered into thousands of mutually suspicious parts.
    • ctrlp 5y ago
      That is an out-dated depiction of Marxism.
      • sparks1970 5y ago
        Can you explain that further? I'm interested in the idea that our understanding of an idea like Marxism can improve the further away we are in time from it. That seems counter-intuitive.
• swayvil 5y ago
  I think that there is a hidden assumption, in wokeness. It isn't explicitly stated but it is strongly implied. That assumption : The WOKE IDEOLOGY is realer than reality. That is to say, it comprises the primary reality and all else (time, space, dogs, cats...) Is secondary. Thus reality is what we agree it to be. A side-effect of authority, consensus and conversation. If we agree that I am a frog then I am literally a frog. And it follows that the greatest perversion is to contradict that ideology. No doubt there are historical examples of something similar.
• atok1 5y ago
  This is a perspective I had not even considered and that is why I am glad I came to HN to learn.
• tehwebguy 5y ago
  > There seems to me to be a ruthlessness to wokeness which I don't understand. What part of “wokeness” are you talking about specifically?
• praestigiare 5y ago
  There is a significant difference in that woke, like SJW, is for the most part a derogatory term. It would be as if the word "christian" was a word created by athiests specifically to refer to those who did not practice what they preached. Any discussion of the merits of "wokeness" is approaching the subject in a biased and unproductive way. I would suggest that those you would describe as woke have, on average, just as much belief in the importance of mercy and grace as you do, and would likely believe they have more. The difference is who is seen as worthy of that grace and mercy. Is it grace to allow someone who has made unwanted sexual advances in the workplace a second chance? Or is it mercy to those who were victimized to remove the problem? Obviously this is a crude and simplified example, as examples often are, but it illustrates the point.
  • foolinaround 5y ago
    > It would be as if the word "christian" was a word created by athiests specifically to refer to those who did not practice what they preached. May off-topic, but it might be interesting to note that 'christian' was similarly not something the Christians called themselves, but were derisively called that by others as in "followers of Christ or Messiah' alluding to the fact that they followed Jesus who proclaimed himself as messiah but was killed in a pitiful way in their eyes. The Christians actually called themselves "people of The Way" -- You make a good point that when starting with a derogatory term does not lead to a productive debate. How would the 'woke people' define themselves? For example, justice is not a new concept. It exists in every society, even the most primitive ones. So, justice as we have it in the US or West, could be seen as derived from English Common Law, which in turn was derived from the Bible's Judeo-Christian origins. Since the times and the culture of the people had changed, the laws itself have evolved. So, what should 'social justice' bring to the table? Are there opponents of these woke actions that agree with the perpetrators of sexual harassment? If not, why are we debating an area we are in full agreement?
    • praestigiare 5y ago
      It's a good point, and I did consider noting that at one time this was also true for the word christian. But I think we agree that this is not the case now. There are several considerations that underpin my own thinking on social justice, but perhaps most relevant here is the concept of competing freedoms. It's easy to say that your right to swing your fist ends at my nose, but the debate over hate speech is much more controversial. In the case of personal threats or libel, we do have a history of recognizing that there are potentially competing freedoms at stake when it comes to certain kinds of speech. We can productively disagree on how to balance these freedoms - even at the extremes - but the caricature of wokeness pretends that I don't care about freedom of speech at all, while simultaneously dismissing that there may be competing freedoms worth considering. I personally believe that freedom of speech outweighs the freedom to live unencumbered by impersonal threats and libel - but I also acknowledge the damage that allows, and believe we should consider ways to minimize or compensate for it. This applies to my example of sexual harassment, but in that case with what I will call "soft freedoms." That is to say, the hypothetical harasser does not have a right to work at that company, and the hypothetical victims do not have a right to not see a particular person. In a perfect world, a reformed harasser could return to work and get a second chance, and those they worked with could feel secure and safe. Given that we do not live in this perfect world, there is a choice in how to balance these soft freedoms. I think we might disagree on where to place this particular line, but probably not by very much. But the "anti-woke" would have you believe that I think that anyone who was accused of the slightest transgression should be fired.
• thurn 5y ago
  Do you not think there is a difference between 'you should follow my religion' and e.g. 'you should use neutral pronouns to make other people more comfortable?' The later isn't about some fundamental belief, it's really just an extension of a concept that has existed for thousands of years -- politeness
  • cblconfederate 5y ago
    Yes, the difference is the second question is a loaded question, it has already moved the definition of "politeness" to exclude people who don't answer "yes" to that question. IMHO, it is a more sneaky question than some religious preacher who can easily take "no" for an answer
  • PragmaticPulp 5y ago
    > The later isn't about some fundamental belief, it's really just an extension of a concept that has existed for thousands of years -- politeness No, it actually is a new, fundamental belief: The belief that it’s okay to assume the worst intent unless others go out of their way to follow all of the correct wokeness rules. Ironically, assuming the worst intent in cases of ambiguity is quite the opposite of politeness. For what it’s worth, I’ve made a best effort to use neutral pronouns in my own writing. However, when I read someone else’s writings that use “his” or “her” in a generic statement, I don’t assume the author is being sexist, misogynistic, or impolite. I assume the author was simply making a generic statement. That’s the difference with the new woke movement: It has been misused and abused as an excuse to assume ill intent in others unless they know and follow all of the right rules.
  • fallingknife 5y ago
    Since when did "politeness" mean you have to do what other people tell you? If English people demanded that we spell color like "colour" because seeing it without the u made them uncomfortable, the correct response would be to tell them to fuck off. I don't see why it's any different with people demanding their own pronouns
    • ModernMech 5y ago
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• octonion 5y ago
  Where's the mercy and grace in allowing people to engage in terrible behavior without consequences? The ruthlessness was in tolerating serial predatory behavior, and people are finally tired of it.
• Zandikar 5y ago
  > I want you to believe my christian message but I will not force you to do so. I don't want to introduce laws to force you to believe what I believe. I don't want you to lose your job because you don't agree with me. Perhaps that's true. But too many of your fellow faithful do, or at least, want to. Just look at Texas and their recent abortion law for one of many egregious and current examples of "good christians" spreading the "good word". The ruthlessness is born of centuries of persecution, belittlement, prejudice, and hate. This does not make it justified, but it is a natural consequence of the masses and the natural swing of the social pendulum. I suspect you very much do understand, but just wish it weren't true, just as the woke and the progressive overlook their own overreach, hate, prejudice and hypocrisies in their plight to right perceived wrongs and pursue some balance of equality and opportunity. In order to achieve peace and understanding, we must hold ourselves responsible, and our own accountable, and that starts with not being ignorant (willful or otherwise) to the misdeeds of those in each of our own tribes.
• pitspotter2 5y ago
  The practice of Christianity is primarily about repentance. We none of us have full control over our behaviour but we always have the ability to correct our hearts by swallowing our pride and accepting divine forgiveness. And we are obliged to forgive others who have repented. Wokeness doesn't understand this. It sees people, woke and Christians both, as hypocrites. And we are! This is because it's necessary to advocate ideal moral standards, even the ones we ourselves are incapable of meeting. However, if someone posts 'hate speech' somewhere this will always be held against them by the woke. So, yes, wokeness does not forgive. There is no mercy.
  • papandada 5y ago
    Even worse, we're supposed to follow the example of forgiving our enemies while they murder us. ("For they know not what they do") this leads to controversy even among Christians, but the cross is scandalous (Greek skandalon is literally a block that causes stumbling) foolishness when encountered face first. God acted first, forgave us before we repented, even forgives those who will never repent ("causes rain to fall on the righteous and unrighteous"). But there is judgment, krinomai, discernment of a heart's response to that forgiveness -- God allows us to reject him in the end, and if I ultimately reject the source of life, I die.
• snarf21 5y ago
  You say "you" don't want to introduce laws to force you to believe what you believe. Are you fighting against the people you voted for passing those laws? Are you willing to vote the other side given evidence that the current group is passing un-Christian laws? If you aren't speaking up for others, then you are complicit in these things you "don't want". I'm sure many may have heard this quote before: First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. The back story of Niemöller is quite interesting. He was a Christian pastor who heard the general message and agreed with the goals of making a better German and having individuals give up some freedoms to make a better country. However, after a meeting with Hitler, some things became very clear. 1) He was being spied on and his phone was tapped (remember, he was pro-Nazi and preaching as such) 2) Hitler didn't care about making Germany better, he just wanted complete and total control over everyone and everything. After this meeting, he saw the man behind the curtain and started preaching against the Nazis and was shortly after locked in the camps. The quote from above was from after the war. He spent the rest of his life recounting how he had failed to life up to his beliefs. Writing and speaking about (essentially) the slippery slope of in-action so others wouldn't end up making the same mistakes he did the next time evil returns. Too many people would rather not do this critical thinking on their own, instead just believing and trusting in others who are "right".
• vidarh 5y ago
  Where is there mercy and grace in being unwilling to make an effort to show the utterly minimal respect of e.g. addressing them how they prefer? There's a ruthlessness to it in large part because of a recognition from many that asking nicely has been met with immense vitriol, anger, even violence in some cases. At some point you stop asking and start demanding. See also Karl Poppers paradox of tolerance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
  • refenestrator 5y ago
    I can only correct this so many times, so here's my drop into the ocean on this thread: The paradox of tolerance is that if you're too tolerant to nazis, they might take over everything and you wind up with less tolerance. It is NOT a get out of jail free card for "you don't have to be tolerant to people that you label as intolerant, in fact terminate them with prejudice". You need a credible threat of the 'bad people' taking over and limiting tolerance for it to hold together. Thank you for coming to my ted talk.
    • vidarh 5y ago
      You're not "correcting" anything. You're misrepresenting the intent to try to reduce the scope of it. Popper did not target just authoritarianism, but intolerance in general. He's arguing that, sure, being prepared to use force is a last resort, but he's also arguing that the intolerant must be met by arguments and kept in check by public opinion if possible. I'm sure some extremists would like to use violence against those they deem intolerant, but when discussing "wokeness" most people fall firmly in the camp of using arguments and using the power of public opinion to keep the intolerance in check.
      • refenestrator 5y ago
        I'm absolutely trying to reduce the scope from what it has become. It has become, "person I don't like is intolerant, according to me, and hey paradox of tolerance, therefore I will persecute them with no quarter and no decency". Did you see some of the crazy cancellation stories last summer? One guy was ruined for saying "please don't burn down buildings, especially right next to my house": https://reason.com/2021/06/15/daniel-elder-cancel-culture-choral-composer-antifa-blm-gia/ https://reason.com/2021/06/15/daniel-elder-cancel-culture-ch... If you think you've found a loophole that enables you to be a McCarthyist rooting out evil, you're the bad guy.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• TheCondor 5y ago
  What are some concrete examples of the ruthlessness you mention? More than a few people that identify as Christian are more than willing to ban abortion, as an example. They could care less about what anyone “believes” but will gladly force others to live as they want. How is that any less ruthless than someone losing their job because they went on a racist tirade and let it end up on Instagram? Lgtbq+ have a long history of not even being allowed to acknowledge their nature for fear of violence, actual violence. Losing a job due to anti-lgtbq+ views that are expressed and recorded, and nobody forces anybody to express their opinions, just doesn’t seem ruthless in comparison. I get it that it sends a chilling to those that share those particular ideals but it’s not like they are trying to have civil discourse either.
• jensensbutton 5y ago
  You can't be seriously using Christians, of all people, as an example of people who don't try to force their views on others. If your argument is that many don't, well I'd argue the "woke" people you're thinking of are just like the evangelical Christians who are not practicing what they preach.
• fidesomnes 5y ago
  as a Thelemite I believe in exposing hypocrites and vengeance on the weak. you don't understand because you can't understand Marxism but don't worry. they will consume themselves in blood and fire just as every leftist does when they reach ascendency.