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

[UWSaint]

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

All this talk about empathy strikes me as a red herring.

Some of this "opposition" of empathy on the right (evangelical or not) is the product of being pedantic about terms. Empathy is different than sympathy is different than compassion -- and yet these terms are all getting at a kind of injunction to relate to and care about the position of another. Empathy is literal (I am experiencing what you are); sympathy is recalling an experienced similarity (I know how you feel); compassion adds an active element to sympathy or empathy (I know how you feel, or I feel your pain, and I wish to alleviate it in some way (large or small)). Compassion can also be motivated where you don't feel another's pain nor have you experienced something similar, but you can imagine the effects of suffering through other ways of knowing (including moral codes, reading about suffering in a book, believing another's testimony who explains to you what they are feeling), and then you are compelled towards charitable or generous actions to address it. Some are skeptical of empathy existing in its literal form because they are skeptical there is a mode of action that creates a collective conscious experience. They wouldn't consider recalling a feeling to understand a core level what another might be feeling (sympathy) to be considered empathy. But we might in every day language use the terms as synonyms -- like I said, the objection is based on being pedantic.

But if the pedantic is countered by pretending synonyms are the same concept and blends them into one thing and pedantic person says "I don't like the word empathy," then the blender claims the pedantic one is devoid of all motivation to care about others. Which is a bull shit critique. It is either a straw man to advance another idea (they are heartless!), or it is a claim by someone incapable of nuance, and paradoxically, unable to apply generosity (good faith) in dialogue.

The other elements of "anti-empathy" is that it is a very common view among people across the political spectrum (and I think has a fair degree of support in psychology and related disciplines), is that empathy alone or in too great a quantity does more harm than good. A simple example based on a stereotype (that tracks large population sets, but might not apply in a given instance): mothers are more clued into their children's suffering than fathers, they are more likely to feel their child's suffering. Related (I think), mothers are more likely than fathers to seek to ameliorate that suffering through protection from the environmental factor causing it, or more likely than fathers to create an environment that insulates the child from that exposure. And this is why fathers and mothers make a good team for child-rearing, because child-rearing is a dance between protection (safety) and exposure (which creates growth, resiliency).

Applying this outside the parent-child dynamic, consider a hungry person. And consider the proverb, "if you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime." Feeding for a day is sort of a compassionate empathetic response (feel the pain, eliminate it); teaching the skill of fishing is a response that says suffer for a little bit longer, and then you will not need others' empathy to eliminate your suffering.

Of course, I think many on the right strawman what compassionate responses to empathic sentiments could produce. There's no reason that empathy's inspired call to action has to be short-sighted. But for whatever reason, many associate empathetic sentiment with enabling intervention. Perhaps it is because of the immediacy of empathy as a response and its indiscriminate concern as to the causes of the suffering. (If we are to truly have empathy, we are not concerned with the whys of the suffering).

[Cornuck]

Amazing how we can have such a long discussion about this on a hockey board!

Maybe all comes down to "Do you give a shit about people who are different than you?" Do you think gays should get married and get all of the legal protections that come with it, or do you oppose it? Do you think women have the right to control their bodies? Or should the government control them? Should people be able to enter a country after fleeing their homeland, or should they be sent back? Etc Etc

Ultimately, it's questions like this and how you answer them that will determine your levels of wokeness, compassion, empathy, or whatever you want to call it.

Your views on these topics should determine how you vote.

[Meds]

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".

No. My experiences with people who identify as woke certainly do not align with that.

[UWSaint]

Amazing how we can have such a long discussion about this on a hockey board!

Maybe all comes down to "Do you give a shit about people who are different than you?" Do you think gays should get married and get all of the legal protections that come with it, or do you oppose it? Do you think women have the right to control their bodies? Or should the government control them? Should people be able to enter a country after fleeing their homeland, or should they be sent back? Etc Etc

Ultimately, it's questions like this and how you answer them that will determine your levels of wokeness, compassion, empathy, or whatever you want to call it.

Your views on these topics should determine how you vote.

I disagree with this bolded conclusion. One's "issue" views on gay marriage, abortion, and refugees are not determinative of your levels of compassion and empathy. (Wokeness, maybe, but that's a political philosophy). Compassion and empathy are apolitical -- when a political ideology attempts to claim them, they do so to enhance how people perceive their humanity or diminish the humanity of their opponents (i.e., dehumanize).

Sometimes giving a shit about people isn't accepting them as they are but helping them become better than they are. Of course, that's fraught with potential error (the giver of the advice is wrong; there is no failing) and hurt feelings (people don't want to confront their own failings), but at its core level its what parents do with their kids, its what friends do with one another when they see the other going down a destructive path, and its inherent in the idea that we all could improve on who we are and that sometimes it takes guidance, advice, etc. to better ourselves. If you aren't open to the fact that you haven't figured it all out, then you implicitly claim you are perfect, you know it all, and you are beyond improvement.

If you don't give a shit about someone who is different than you, you wouldn't really be compelled to persuade them to adopt a different disposition if you were motivated by improving their life. And I'm not saying every nattering know-it-all is acting to help others rather than preen for their own benefit, I am just saying that many people are motivated by helping others -- including people who disagree or disapprove of what you are doing. Mutual admiration societies are for the vain and weak-minded.

I think it is damned dangerous to assume that "issue" views strongly correlate with human sentiments, because it is, ultimately, and arrogant and dehumanizing way to look at the world. Pitching the world as those who care and those who do not, moralizing every issue as good vs. evil (and not simply worse or better), assuming bad faith or bad intentions of political opponents (and presuming good faith and good intentions from your allies) -- this is tribal thinking; this is what makes for the cognitive distortions that end up in paranoia, anxiety, anger, etc.

Sometimes people just put their compassion in a different place. Sometimes that compassion is based on unknowable things or errors, but it isn't due to a lack of humanity or caring about another. Take abortion -- the compassion of someone who thinks it shouldn't be legal (or just thinks it should be publicly discouraged) might be placed with the child half of whom are girls (who will die), not as much with the pregnant woman (whose pregnancy will, in most circumstances, be a serious inconvenience, result in pain and discomfort, and could very well alter future life choices). Or it might be placed with the pregnant woman, knowing that more people regret aborting children than they regret having them after having considered abortion.

There might be a list of reasons why you place the compassion elsewhere (or come to a view on the issue for reasons other than compassion), but the idea there's a correlation between compassion and abortion policy proves only that you haven't considered why people who are filled with compassion might nonetheless be against abortion (whether that's voting to make it illegal or trying to persuade a child or friend not to do it).

And I don't say this to open the debate on abortion or gay marriage or refugees (of these three issues, I will only say that I bet we don't disagree on all three), I say it because its really important to imagine your political opponents on a given issue as having a good reason to take the position that they have. Doing so has three benefits: (1) you'll decrease your own bigotry towards people who disagree with you which will (2) open up opportunities to find common ground; and (3) you will see that good intentions aren't enough to be right about policy -- which will improve your ability to discern when to know when your side (whatever side that is) has gone too far.

[Chef Boi RD]

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".

No. My experiences with people who identify as woke certainly do not align with that.

lol, I have yet to come across anyone who “identifies” themselves as “woke”. It’s a bullshit term used up by the far right Christian nationalists, stolen by them from the blacks, all just to create a “boogeyman” for their cheesy cause. The culture warriors fear mongering. Just like the “well organized domestic terrorist organization” - Antifa, the boogeymen, be careful, they may eat your pets! BBQ them at democratic lefty tailgate parties!!

[Chef Boi RD]

Hmmmm, this cat is interesting

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DPK4t5IF ... lzMWtpcW55

Anybody read his book? Separation Church and Hate - John Fugelsang

IMG_9586.jpeg (38.31 KiB) Viewed 162 times

[Per]

It looks like former French president Nicolas Sarkozy will be in jail for the next five years. Poor fellow. This sort of thing must be routine in those circles, or so we hear

Why did they single this individual out?

He took bribes from Libya. Pretty good reason imho.

A head of state should never accept gifts from foreign governments. That is corruption.

[Per]

I say it is leftist, as when you look at the spectrum, the Right's core values are a belief in the Individual over the group, small, unobtrusive government, and full Democracy and Capitalism. The Left believes in large governement, groups over individuals, high taxes, control over freeedom, and heavy government involvement in the economy, and dictatorship. Communism is Leftist, and wants the State to own production, while Fascism is Leftist, and usually leans more to state control of production, by telling corporations what to make, for how much, etc. As the main difference between the two, it's a pretty fine line And, as someone mentioned earlier, Russia (and China, imo) are more Fascist than Communist, as they don't own the corportations, they just have their oligarchs instead.

To simplify the spectrum, the Far Right, if we follow the spectrum, would be a form of anarchy, with almost no governemnt, and no rules. The Far Left turns into a Communist/Fascist dictatorship.

It is interesting how Fascism grew out of the Marxist communist beliefs, but was mostly labelled as being Right Wing because the Italians and Germans hated Russia so much that they preferred to be called Fascists intead, as they were pretty much the same as Communism.

I disagree with your definitions. The idea that small government is a core belief on the right is a rather novel American idea. Traditional right wing governments have typically been rather robust. The old monarchies gave absolute power to their ruler, much like Trump wants to have it.

Anarchists are left wing, and they don't really want a government at all.

And the idea of placing the individual over the group is the central tenet of liberalism, not conservatism.

But as I already stated in an earlier post, the left right spectrum is mainly about the distribution of wealth. Socialists want redistribution from the rich to the poor, so that everyone has enough to get by. Conservatives oppose this and want the social structures to remain static.

Liberalism came around in the late 18th century and focused on the rights of the individual. They wanted to get rid of the guilds who controlled who was allowed to work within a particular trade and they wanted to remove government control of imports and exports, ie they were pro free trade. They also wanted freedom of expression and suffrage for all (or at least for all white men). There were two major revolutions based on these liberal ideals in the late 18th century, first the American revolution and then the French. They opposed monarchy and instead instated elected government by the people for the people.

For a very long time the main divide in politics was between liberals that wanted equal rights for all, free trade and democracy and conservatives that wanted power to be held by the crown, the aristocracy and the church, opposed welfare reforms and wanted a strict control of foreign trade.

Then socialism came along, which suggested that the workers should own the means of production and that wealth should be redistributed from the rich to the poor. Liberalism never went that far. The liberals just wanted everyone to have the same rights and that the individual rights must not be trampled by the government. Socialists wante everyone to have the same living standard, and to achieve this wealth must be redistributed.

Anyway, so looking at these three different flavours, the conservatives want status quo and favou rthose that already have money and power. And typically they also favour a strong army, a strong government and a strong church. Core values are God, nation and family. The liberals wants everyone to have equal opportunity, but to climb the societal ladder through your own education and hard work. They favour individual rights and rule of law. And the socialists wants to have a system that provides basic living standards for everyone through a centralised system that controls the means of production and redistributes wealth from the rich to the poor.

Now, in this modern day and age liberal democracy has been embraced by all western nations and are almost considered a given today. Concepts like democracy, free election, human rights, rule of law and free trade have been more or less considered universal values, which means that many of these have been adopted by the right and the left as well. Both socialists and conservatives today tend to favour democracy and rule of law.

The size of government is not a right -left issue though. This is more on the liberal vs authoritarian scale (Americans often prefer to say libertarian instead of liberal, as they tend to use liberal as a euphemism for socialist, but imho a libertarian is a right wing liberal, whereas liberal is the generic concept for placing individual rights ahead of government rights).

Liberals focus on the rights of the individual over the right of the government and authoritarians find that the rights of the nation trumps the rights of the individual. Thus liberals favour weak governments with strict term limits, as the founding fathers made sure to create in the USA through strict separation of power between the executive, legislative and judicial branches that are meant to keep eachother in check so that no one has absolute power. Authoritarians on the other hand grant the government the right to do pretty much whatever they want even to the detriment of their citizens. They can even round them up in the streets and detain them without trial.

As I stated before, anarchists are extreme left wing liberals and libertarians are extreme right wing liberals. They both want small governments but disagree quite vehemently about how wealth should be distributed.

Fascists are extreme right wing authoritarians and communists are extreme left wing authoritarians. They are almoat identical, but in a communist country you have a political upper class and in a fascist country the upper class is mainly composed of merchants and aristocrats. But they both grant their governments absolute power and let them imprison or even execute people as they see fit. And restrict free trade.

Hopefully our politicals system should find a balance somewhere in the centre of all this. Authoritarian rule is horrible, and both Anarchists and Libertarians go a bit too far.

[Per]

Again, since when is anti-fascism a bad thing, ffs.

What is Antifa's definition of fascism?

The origin of Antifa can be traced to Italy in the 1920's. As Mussolini rose to power, Anti-fascist groups formed. They spread to Germany, which is where the name Antifa first occured as a shortening of the Antifaschistische Aktion, a loosely organized group that took the fight to the Nazis in the streets of Germany 1932-33. In 1933 the Nazis seized power in Germany, and the anti-fascists either went underground or ended up in concentration camps.

So their definition of fascism has basically been fascists and nazis. The term became popular again in the 1980's when white supremacist skinheads tried to infiltrate the mostly anarchist punk rock scene in Britain and elsewhere. When neonazis showed up, Antifa would be there to fight them.

But Antifa has never been a real organization. It is more a loosely formed collective of people who oppose fascism. The shape and form varies from country to country and changes over time. And thus their definition of fascism probably varies a lot depending on which of them you ask.

In general here in Europe it is mostly white supremacists that they try to keep off the streets.

[Cousin Strawberry]

"it's a little known fact....."

-Per Clavin

[Per]

They/we [the atheists] seem to be doing just dandy regarding “morals”.

Sure. Lenin. Stalin. Mao. Pol Pot. Hitler; possibly into paganism, but decidedly not Christian.

What could go wrong?

I disagree about Hitler. I'd say he was some sort of Christian Nationalist.

He was raised Catholic and never formally left the church. He had a lot of quarrels with the different Christian denominations and certainly did not conform to traditional Christian beliefs, but in a slightly tweaked version:

In public statements made during his rule, Hitler continued to speak positively about a Nazi vision of Christian German culture, and his belief in an Aryan Christ. Hitler added that Saint Paul, as a Jew, had falsified Jesus' message – a theme Hitler repeated in private conversations, including, in October 1941, when he made the decision to murder the Jews.

Many leading Nazis were into paganism, or more specifically Norse Mythology, including Himmler, Bormann Rosenberg and Göring. Hitler was not, he thought it was ridiculous to try to revive it. I think some confusion here arises from him tolerating it and from a speech he give five days after the death of Paul von Hindenburg, which he ended with the phrase "Dead Commander, enter into Valhalla now!" I don't think that makes him more of a believer in Norse Mythology though then Kash Patel when he said “To my friend Charlie Kirk - rest now, brother. We have the watch. And I'll see you in Valhalla." It is just poetic license, and white supremacists tend to like viking stuff. Not that I understand how Patel managed to stumble into that subculture. In Mein Kampf he writes the following about Germans practicing paganism:

"The characteristic thing about these people [modern-day followers of the early Germanic religion] is that they rave about the old Germanic heroism, about dim prehistory, stone axes, spear and shield, but in reality are the greatest cowards that can be imagined. For the same people who brandish scholarly imitations of old German tin swords, and wear a dressed bearskin with bull's horns over their heads, preach for the present nothing but struggle with spiritual weapons, and run away as fast as they can from every Communist blackjack.

As for atheism, Hitler opposed it and considered it an integral part of communism, which he abhored.

In a speech delivered in Berlin, October 24, 1933, Hitler stated: "We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out." In a speech delivered at Koblenz, August 26, 1934 Hitler said: "There may have been a time when even parties founded on the ecclesiastical basis were a necessity. At that time Liberalism was opposed to the Church, while Marxism was anti-religious. But that time is past. National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary, it stands on the ground of a real Christianity. The Church's interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of today, in our fight against the Bolshevist culture, against an atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for the consciousness of a community in our national life, for the conquest of hatred and disunion between the classes, for the conquest of civil war and unrest, of strife and discord. These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles."

Now, it is hard to know for certain exactly what Hitler's beliefs were, because everyone is trying to make sure he is not grouped with them.
That being said, my personal view on the matter is that he was raised catholic, drifted toward protestantism and then gradually, because of widespread opposition from church leaders became more hostile toward Christianity as preached by the churches.

He seems to have settled into being some sort of deist, believing that the Aryans, from whom the Germans descended, were God's chosen people and that Jesus Christ had tried to fight the Jews but was killed by them and that his message had then been perverted by Paul, who highjacked Christianity.

Is that being Christian? I don't know. Definitely not mainstream Christian, but his spiritual beliefs seem more influenced by Christian tenets than by atheism or paganism. Including the hate against Jews, which has been inherent in Church teachings, especially during the Middle Ages.

The quotes above are from the wikipedia article on Hitler's religious view. It is a long but rather interesting read and includes arguments for many differening opinions on the matter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious ... olf_Hitler

[Per]

Education is the problem in the states, IMO

Illiteracy rates are about the same in Canada.

I’m all for literacy, Corn.

But at several points in this thread from multiple posters there has been a suggestion that intelligence is correlated with better morals, or being less prone to manipulation, or being impervious to doing really stupid things.

There is limited evidence to establish this correlation. The thing is, smart people are not immune from the many irrational heuristics and selfish motivations that affect us all. But they think they are immune to them, and that hubris can multiply the consequences of their errors.

You are correct. Sadly, there are many intelligent people who are morally corrupt.
I don't think more so than stupid people, but being intelligent, they can do far more harm.

[Per]

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

Originally it meant awareness, but the meaning of the word has shifted toward awareness overreach as it has switched from being praise to being an insult or a taunt.

edit: Right, I see 5th already covered this.
There were several pages of stuff to catch up on.

[Per]

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?

Both work. If you're empathetic you feel their pain, if you're sympathetic you understand their pain.
I think it's a matter of personality traits. But both words imply you care.

[Chef Boi RD]

Well said, Per.

“Fascists are extreme right wing authoritarians and communists are extreme left wing authoritarians”