US Erection 12 *AND* 16 *AND* 20 *AND* 22 *AND* 24 *AND* Beyond

[Cornuck]

I’ve always considered “woke” as awareness overreach

And that does happen. Some people expect everyone else to be as 'woke' as they are (or pretend to be on social media).

I think that your news sources may play this up more to make it look more prevalent than it is.

[5thhorseman]

I’ve always considered “woke” as awareness over reach

The original meaning of the term just meant having an awareness. Unfortunately that implies that those who are not "woke" are asleep, which is insulting even if accurate. So I understand the backlash against the term.

It's unfortunate the meaning has become so diluted that it is now used as an an insult.

[5thhorseman]

We used to say "life is sacred". Now we recognise that people with terminal illnesses are suffering and lose their dignity, so we have MAID.

Abortion used to be a criminal act, now we recognise a woman's right to control her body.

Morals evolve as we evolve.

Yes, help the old and disabled (and lonely!) kill themselves. And eliminate those clumps of cells. I mean they could be anything. Enlightened! Progress!

Yes the State should force people to suffer until they succumb to their disease or old age, or medicate them into a stupor.

I'm really surprised by your response UW.

The state isn’t forcing people to suffer without maid; the state is permitting the intentional taking of life with it. I think there’s a fundamental moral difference between palliative care that could (but is not intended to) cause, say, respiratory failure and intending that result.

And even if I didn’t have this view, I would feel it silly to think countries that have such programs “enlightened” while others are backwards.

Everyone I know who has committed suicide would have described their life as full of anguish or suffering. Were they enlightened to kill themselves?

The term "enlightened", just like "woke", has a negative connotation for those who don't share the same view. If morals are subjective, is anyone really enlightened or are we just different people with different morals?

[Meds]

There’s no need to complicate empathy, ffs. It’s pretty clear cut and dry. You either lack empathy for others or have it. Without it you pretty much hate. or could give two shits, about your fellow human. I was under the impression empathy as being important to ole JC.

I'm not a particularly empathetic person. Quite often I am oblivious to others' feelings . Does that mean that I hate my fellow human?

I always equated "woke" to awareness. You don't need to feel what others feel, you just need to be aware of what they are going through. To be woke means to have an awareness of racial prejudice and social injustice.

So you need to by sympathetic, not empathetic?

[5thhorseman]

Whatever we want. We all want to survive. Co-exist. Live in a society. Thrive. Our morals are the the beliefs that enable those things.

We don't need anything external to us to tell us what those morals SHOULD be.

We all want to survive, but I don’t think it’s at all a given that we all want others to survive or to co-exist. It’s certainly not the resting position of mankind. I am not even making a general *need religion* claim here, as some religions are perfectly sanguine with convert or kill.

I think it's a given that we all want at least SOME other people to survive or to co-exist. Our immediate family at least, our friends, our nation. What I'm arguing is that we recognise that we depend on others, so our morals also reflect that. Call it self-interest if you like

[5thhorseman]

There’s no need to complicate empathy, ffs. It’s pretty clear cut and dry. You either lack empathy for others or have it. Without it you pretty much hate. or could give two shits, about your fellow human. I was under the impression empathy as being important to ole JC.

I'm not a particularly empathetic person. Quite often I am oblivious to others' feelings . Does that mean that I hate my fellow human?

I always equated "woke" to awareness. You don't need to feel what others feel, you just need to be aware of what they are going through. To be woke means to have an awareness of racial prejudice and social injustice.

So you need to by sympathetic, not empathetic?

Sympathy is an emotional response. I don't think you need to be sympathetic, just aware of and standing against racism and social injustice.

[Tciso]

So you need to by sympathetic, not empathetic?

A problem with empathy is that it gets weaponized by the woke crew a lot. I am a lesser person than they are because I don't empathize with a pain or feelings I don't have, because I am not as woke as they are. And that's how I feel. So if you want to have empathy for how I feel, or sympathy for me having the feelings of a pussy, that's your choice and your definition.

[Chef Boi RD]

Charlie Kirk the new Marcus Aurelius. Let’s make a statue of him and turn his quotes into medieval scrolls, ffs. I fucking hated the guy.

Was he too anti=fascist for ya?

A culture warrior. A fine fellow he was, a beacon of hope.

[Chef Boi RD]

So you need to by sympathetic, not empathetic?

A problem with empathy is that it gets weaponized by the woke crew a lot. I am a lesser person than they are because I don't empathize with a pain or feelings I don't have, because I am not as woke as they are. And that's how I feel. So if you want to have empathy for how I feel, or sympathy for me having the feelings of a pussy, that's your choice and your definition.

Wow, amazing

[Meds]

So you need to by sympathetic, not empathetic?

A problem with empathy is that it gets weaponized by the woke crew a lot. I am a lesser person than they are because I don't empathize with a pain or feelings I don't have, because I am not as woke as they are. And that's how I feel. So if you want to have empathy for how I feel, or sympathy for me having the feelings of a pussy, that's your choice and your definition.

The problem with the woke crew is that they vilify people for a lack of empathy while demonstrating the very lack of empathy they are condemning a lack of.

You can't actually empathize with a person unless you can relate through shared experience.....without common experience, you are pretending. Which essentially is sympathizing. Compassion drives action.

[Per]

I didn’t read this post before mine. We are saying very similar things from slightly different angles.

Where we might disagree is the degree which we think European populism is closer to liberal norms (political freedom/individual rights) or fascist rejection of those norms (nation above all). That answer is complicated by the fact those movements have people in them who disagree on the same question, and disagreement about whether political freedom and rights depends on finite polities or whether borders, etc are a bug in the system to eventually erode.

Yup. It's refreshing to know that there are things we agree on.

And populism is confusing, because populist leaders tend to say whatever people want to hear, without putting much effort on making it a coherent message where all pieces fit together. Thus they may eg praise freedom of speech while insisting that those who dare criticize them should be fired or imprisoned. The main message is that they have all solutions and that they need to be elected. Increasing spending while lowering taxes is just fine if you are a populist who need not worry about reality or logic.

A true conservative is also a fiscal conservative.
A true socialist wants redistribution of wealth, so taxes are necessary.
A true liberal tries to balance these things and comes across as wishy-washy.

But for a populist logic is no restraint. And thus their message will include whatever sounds good.
It works out fantastically until they actually gain power and have to try to make good on all their promises.

There are right wing and left wing populists and it is often really hard to tell them apart.

[Tciso]

So you need to by sympathetic, not empathetic?

A problem with empathy is that it gets weaponized by the woke crew a lot. I am a lesser person than they are because I don't empathize with a pain or feelings I don't have, because I am not as woke as they are. And that's how I feel. So if you want to have empathy for how I feel, or sympathy for me having the feelings of a pussy, that's your choice and your definition.

The problem with the woke crew is that they vilify people for a lack of empathy while demonstrating the very lack of empathy they are condemning a lack of.

You can't actually empathize with a person unless you can relate through shared experience.....without common experience, you are pretending. Which essentially is sympathizing. Compassion drives action.

+1

[5thhorseman]

The problem with the woke crew is that they vilify people for a lack of empathy while demonstrating the very lack of empathy they are condemning a lack of.

While this may be true and is obviously hypocritical, isn't this only on the extreme edges of the those who consider themselves woke? I don't think this is where the main division in society is over "wokeness".

[UWSaint]

We used to say "life is sacred". Now we recognise that people with terminal illnesses are suffering and lose their dignity, so we have MAID.

Abortion used to be a criminal act, now we recognise a woman's right to control her body.

Morals evolve as we evolve.

Yes, help the old and disabled (and lonely!) kill themselves. And eliminate those clumps of cells. I mean they could be anything. Enlightened! Progress!

Yes the State should force people to suffer until they succumb to their disease or old age, or medicate them into a stupor.

I'm really surprised by your response UW.

The state isn’t forcing people to suffer without maid; the state is permitting the intentional taking of life with it. I think there’s a fundamental moral difference between palliative care that could (but is not intended to) cause, say, respiratory failure and intending that result.

And even if I didn’t have this view, I would feel it silly to think countries that have such programs “enlightened” while others are backwards.

Everyone I know who has committed suicide would have described their life as full of anguish or suffering. Were they enlightened to kill themselves?

The term "enlightened", just like "woke", has a negative connotation for those who don't share the same view. If morals are subjective, is anyone really enlightened or are we just different people with different morals?

I am using enlightenment to try to capture the idea some people have that morality evolves in a progressive fashion, which is to say that it improves over time due to trial and error, the "proof" of victorious morals, etc. While I do think there are broad corrective mechanisms in society to "progress" beyond moral conceptions that caused terrible consequences, I also think we sometimes repackage old forms of amorality without noticing it or that in the zeal to correct on error, we create another (or two or three). We are not necessarily better off from a moral perspective, and the emergence of 20th century communism and fascism as moral philosophies is pretty good evidence of this.

I think "woke" is something more than awareness of a thing, but is instead *consciousness* of a thing that arises from having false consciousness stripped away. I think that's closer to how adherents of the term before it was pilloried saw it, and that makes sense from a theoretical perspective (woke is an outgrowth of critical studies which is an outgrowth of Marxism which is an outgrowth of Hegelianism). And I think this view (woke is about eliminating false consciousness) also has support for woke in practice, which abhors debate (no debate without first accepting all of the woke principles, can't platform "hate")) and ignores data (doesn't matter if unarmed blacks are not killed by police at a higher rate than unarmed whites). Ultimately, any gnostic understanding will see itself immune to (and above) critiques of its revealed truths through traditional social science or data tools or critiques of its prescriptions by other philosophies (namely, liberalism and Christianity, both of which *theoretically* recognize the central value/dignity of the individual and thus propose universalist ethics, independent of race). The woke rejects--even won't engage--these critiques because the gnostic understanding *is* truth, and thus anything that might call the truth into question is a tool of oppression, and the woke know these truths because of the oppression. Plus, the woke were the targets of the oppression, and if you don't have the gnostic understanding forged by the oppression, you can't have true consciousness of it. The best you can do is be an ally and not question it.

[Chef Boi RD]

I find it interesting that the most devout Christians like the Christian Nationalist MAGA movement we are seeing sweeping America for example are greatly opposed to having empathy. I wonder if we’re going to be seeimg some edits in Trumps Bible for more anti-woke mentions.

From the Bible

Jesus Wept: In John 11:35, Jesus wept with Lazarus's mourners, demonstrating deep emotional connection and understanding of their grief, even though he knew he would raise Lazarus from the dead.

Rejoice with the Happy, Weep with the Sad: Romans 12:15 instructs believers to share in both joy and sorrow, a clear call to empathetic connection.

A Sympathetic High Priest: Hebrews 4:15 describes Jesus as a High Priest who can "sympathize with our weaknesses" because he experienced them himself, showing Christ's ability to relate to human suffering.

Remembering Those in Prison: Hebrews 13:3 says to "Remember those in prison as if you were in prison with them," a powerful example of empathetic action.

Kindness and Gentleness: The concept is woven into the Great Commandment to love your neighbor and the fruit of the Spirit, encouraging compassion, care, and concern for others