woke

[Alexis Jacobi]

If anyone were truly anti-abortion on the moral grounds that it is only just to be anti-death, then that person would be a hypocrite unless he were also anti-gun and anti-death penalty.

This does not follow. While I think I understand your reasoning it is a pretty bad argument. The 'sancity of life' and the protection of this life as it pertains to an unfinished baby child in the womb is extremely different in all aspects to having a gun and using a gun for its intended purpose: self-defense. True that militarism and adventurism can be, and should be critiqued and opposed by those who profess Christian faith and ideals. Some do, some don't.

The death penalty, from a Christian perspective, is not as problematic as it seems. If confession and repentance have a 'saving grace' then the severe criminal who by his own actions has deserved that punishment has in his own hands the power to achieve grace. I am explaining the Christian perspective, not defending it necessarily.

But the child-in-embryo -- obviously an incipient life, a baby -- has no agency of any sort.

I think you'll have to reexamine your arguments. . . .

The left will never control the media as long as Fox News is freely accessible to any who are interested.

Thank heavens for Fox News despite all its imperfections. I do not make my decisions on the basis of Fox News reporting so for me it is just a window into contemporary thought-processes. And I see it in a 'relationship' with the other media-systems that operate through similar tactics. It is mass-ideology for the mass of people. It is just a question of what side of an arbitrary fence one stands on.

If what you abhor about the left were equally true, or more so, of the right—a tenet, I know, you explicitly refute—you would certainly abhor the same on the right, no?

It depends on what 'right' you are talking about. But here's the thing: neither of these terms are sufficient anymore. Who is on the Left, who is on the Right and why -- those questions needs to be explored more. But those who have so blatantly established themselves on one side of a fence or the other, they often cannot see themselves. They do not understand why they are opposed. So their respective *badges* are misleading.

Where you and I disagree is that I see the right as dogmatic, single-minded, close-minded, demanding that one do unto others as dictated by the right, demanding that one live life as a rightist lives life and so on. Clearly we disagree on this.

That would depend entirely on which right-leaning and which left-leaning thinker one chose to hold up as an ideal example.

In fact the *true* or *original* right-conservative thinkers are entirely coherent in the expression of their ideas. Yet they are opposed, or we assume they are opposed, by people like Noam Chomsky or, say, Angela Davis. What are the essential differences in tenet and ideal? That would have to be explored and defined. An effort that involves a good deal of work. And who is willing to do that work when it is far more enticing to take up an emotionalized position in 'righteousness'?

Someone from the left is more likely than not to say to the rightist: don’t be gay; don’t marry someone from your gender; don’t have an abortion. But let others live their lives as they wish.

Here, you have obviously not studied in any depth the arguments and idea-structures of those who see it necessary to inhibit homosexuality from spreading socially and culturally. You also (likely) have not examined closely the arguments of those who do define marriage as a 'sacred union' exclusively available to a man and a woman in a generative relationship as the 'social foundation'. And I will wager that you haven't well understood the Christian or the religious-metaphysical argument against killing the unborn child.

We do not 'let others live as they wish' when we see, when we understand, that what they do is intolerably wrong. No, we intervene. Thus it is a question of defined values. And the Culture Wars turn on the battles between definition-sets. The only way to get around these conflicts is to induce people to stop thinking! To stop having defined values that require defense.

The purpose of this post is not to convince you to leave the right and love the left. I am only underscoring where we could “agree to disagree”.

In a philosophical environment we had best avail ourselves of 'intellectual skyhooks' and all sorts of 'idea-contraptions' of the sort Iambiguous recommends to us -- rather than resort to the argument-bodkin delivered with a cynical twist.

[Immanuel Can]

If you disagree with a Leftist, you have your business burned, your children harassed, your reputation destroyed, your social media feeds cut, your character assassinated, your head punched...

If you disagree with a conservative, you get disagreed with.

This is true. But you are not getting to the core: the Left Woke Progressive faction sets its sight on transforming the nation and American identity. If you oppose that transformation you must be destroyed. Once this is understood the present battles make far more sense.

True enough.

Even many so-called Conservatives are 100% intolerant of ideas and attitudes they see, with Progressives, as being wrong and evil.

Well, maybe they should.

I have to say, I really don't meet these conservatives, and I can't find them in the media...except as rumours generated by the Left, claiming we're awash in "right-wingers," and "Nazis," or "racists," or "homophobes," or "nationalist terrorists," and so on. I do meet people who reject the Woke agenda, sometimes in vehement terms...but they're not what the Left wants us to think they are, and that much is obvious.

One thing's clear: if such do exist, then have no real power in the public square -- no political parties representing their values and interests, no mainline media outlets, no serious publishing houses, no money, no great numbers, no cachet in the public mind, no ability to ban, no power in the educational system, no riots and demonstrations for their cause, and no slavering elites ginning them up and loading them with cash to get them to burn the inner city or foment revolution...

And you would expect that if they were so common as the Left claims, that there would be a ton of such things available, so we could all see these masses of dangerous "right-wingers." That would help the Left a lot. Why don't we? Because even the Left can't find enough of them to make their point. They would do it, if they could, of course: but they can't, it seems.

What I detect, instead, is that increasing numbers of people at the low level -- workers, ordinary folks, lower-middle class types, rural folks and such, but now also some at higher levels, too -- are expressing a kind of low-level rumble of discontentment with the Woke posturing, and are turning away from it in disgust. They've just had enough of the Leftists' nonsense, and their propaganda has become to wild and stupid to believe any longer. A kind of Ricky Gervais contempt for Progressivism and its theatrics has begun to take hold more generally. We'll have to see what it comes to.

But "intolerance"? Is that always a vice?

The Woke want us to "tolerate" the genital mutilation of children. They want us to "tolerate" the murder of infants, in fact. They want us to "tolerate" the total destruction of women's sports, and ultimately, of womanhood itself. They want us to "tolerate" censorship and silencing of the opposition. They want us to "tolerate" corrupt and mentally incompetent leaders. They want us to "tolerate" hugely expensive foreign wars. They want us to "tolerate" the corruption of the electoral process. They want us to "tolerate" drag queens in kindergartens, and a complete lack of academic standards in many subjects in universities. They want us to "tolerate" drugs. They want us to "tolerate" unrestricted global migration and the end of nations in favour of globalist utopian dreams that are guaranteed to end in disaster. They want us to "tolerate" absurd gas prices, and the destruction of our own food supply, in the name of a "climate change" strategy that's not even scientific or demonstrable...

So is such "tolerance" a virtue? Or is it a vice? There are clearly some things we ought not to be tolerating at all, and it's worse than a shame if we do.

[Harbal]

I have to say, I really don't meet these conservatives, and I can't find them in the media...except as rumours generated by the Left, claiming we're awash in "right-wingers," and "Nazis," or "racists," or "homophobes," or "nationalist terrorists," and so on. I do meet people who reject the Woke agenda, sometimes in vehement terms...but they're not what the Left wants us to think they are, and that much is obvious.

I've noticed that whatever argument you are promoting, you only seem to meet the kind of people (often in abundance) who's existence tends to support your position. It just goes to show the importance of knowing the right people.

[Immanuel Can]

Note that you do an excellent job of driving people away from even considering Christian philosophy as worthy and emulatable. If you are such a Christian -- God help us all!

Ad hominem again, of course.

However, you make me mindful of this:

Jesus said: “Therefore, everyone who confesses Me before people, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before people, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.

Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to turn a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a person’s enemies will be the members of his household." (Matt.10:32-36)

So much for the idea that being a Christian is some kind of "public relations" exercise, and that if people don't like what you say, then you're not doing your job. Christ Himself said that divisions between rejectors and accepters were necessary and certain; and that this "sword" He brought would divide people along lines of hostility.

So really, it worries me not at all. People have a choice to make about God. Some will be for, and some will be against. What they do with it is up to them. What's important is only that everybody takes the position they're committed to, and lives and dies accordingly. The results are not in my hands, and I'm not called to "soft-pedal" anything that is found in the Bible.

Let people decide whatever they will. I'm not a PR man. God does not require one, and I'd be a bad Christian if I behaved like one.

And you, my friend, will make your own decision. And by that decision you shall settle your own accounts. The very last thing I would do is undermine your conscience and will.

[Immanuel Can]

I have to say, I really don't meet these conservatives, and I can't find them in the media...except as rumours generated by the Left, claiming we're awash in "right-wingers," and "Nazis," or "racists," or "homophobes," or "nationalist terrorists," and so on. I do meet people who reject the Woke agenda, sometimes in vehement terms...but they're not what the Left wants us to think they are, and that much is obvious.

I've noticed that whatever argument you are promoting, you only seem to meet the kind of people (often in abundance) who's existence tends to support your position. It just goes to show the importance of knowing the right people.

Heh.

A bit facile, that. What it doesn't explain is the complete inability of the Left to locate these alleged masses of slavering conservatives who are lurking out there, waiting to spring. Where are their political parties? Where are their media outlets? Where are their demonstrations and gatherings? Where are they in the education system? Which governmental agencies to they control? Where are their efforts at censorship manifest? Who have they killed, maimed and brutalized? Where are they setting neighbourhoods on fire? Where are the conferences of their world leaders?

The Leftis media has a serious problem: it can't find enough extremist right-wingers to put on the daily news. It could put on the Lefties, of course, but it doesn't like to have to do that. Their "protests" are "peaceful," after all. But you'd best believe if they could find these hordes of conservatives, they'd be showing us them all the time.

It seems they can't...at least nowhere near in comparable numbers, influence and vociferousness to support their narrative that we're in immanent danger of right-wing takeover. And that's quite remarkable. You should perhaps ask yourself why...

[Dontaskme]

I'm not called to "soft-pedal" anything that is found in the Bible.

Let people decide whatever they will. I'm not a PR man. God does not require one, and I'd be a bad Christian if I behaved like one.

But you must do as you are told, as you are told to do so by your Bible, written by your Father. You are the Child of your Father, and you must do as you are told, you must obey your Father, because that's what the Bible tells you to do.

And you, my friend, will make your own decision. And by that decision you shall settle your own accounts. The very last thing I would do is undermine your conscience and will.

And you my friend should refrain from telling other people what they already know. I understand your need to save the world and his wife, and make every sinner a saint and make the world a better place for all. Afterall, that's what you are told to do with your life, even though your Bible is one of the most messed up, contradicting books that was ever produced by mankind. It's full of genocide, racism, slaves and domination over females, it's extremely patriarchal. It's just a crap book. And it's full of the words of your Father dear little Adult Child of your Father, who does not want to think for yourself, because your Bible forbids you to have a brain cell of your own.

[Harbal]

A bit facile, that. What it doesn't explain is the complete inability of the Left to locate these alleged masses of slavering conservatives who are lurking out there, waiting to spring.

I know what you mean. It's the same with the rabid "Lefty" communists that are supposed to be infecting civilisation like a virus. I've never met a single one.

[Iwannaplato]

However, you make me mindful of this:

Jesus said: “Therefore, everyone who confesses Me before people, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before people, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.

Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to turn a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a person’s enemies will be the members of his household." (Matt.10:32-36)

So much for the idea that being a Christian is some kind of "public relations" exercise, and that if people don't like what you say, then you're not doing your job.

This makes me wonder about a few things.
Right off the bat in defense of your position, I don't think the Bible, as complicated and at least seemingly contradictory as it is, requires people to make nice and be some kind of pure diplomat. Or to be non-controversial or to avoid saying things that people don't like.

That said, 1) This was Jesus speaking. Jesus has his message and has come to earth and this message if followed will lead to divisions. He's an expert, to say the least, both in how he speaks and frames issues and who he speaks to and when and in what context. Does Jesus mean that other people should be divisive like he considers his presences, actions and messages will be or is their role to be to follow his messages and act in accordance with the moral positions that he espouses, ones that are even more rigorous than the OT? He doesn't just expect people not to act in certain bad ways, but to avoid thinking in bad ways. He makes an inward turn. That attitude is key.
So can one justify one's actions based on what Jesus is saying about his unique intercession in the world of humans?
2) I think we can all acknowledge that a line of reasoning like yours could justify a very wide range of behavior and attitudes. IOW if someone does things at a PTA meeting, a local council meeting, at a church, or in some other way in a community or family that divides people, that leads to arguments and division, that gets people to hop on other people or see them as less worthy of good treatment, they could cite this passage from Jesus.

What I mean is, let's say Jesus intended his followers to be like him and leave a wake of division behind them, this doesn't mean that any actions that lead to this are OK. I think it's an assumption that Jesus intended others to be like him in this regard and actually my sense is it is more the fact of his nature and participation in the world of humans that will lead to division, not, say his behavior, choice of words, etc. He is bringing a message to earth about how to be close to God and how to be a good person. Some will follow this, others will not. Some sons will leave the practices and religions of their fathers: that's division. He's not referring to personality traits or interpersonal tactics but what his message will lead to. I don't think he was saying you my followers shall create division as I have. Further, even if he was: how does one know one is not simply finding in this quote justification for things Jesus would not have liked.

So 1) I think it's really about the consequences of a new option, new way of being in relation to God, not about how nicely or not, PR like or not, one interacts with other people
and
2) this was Jesus talking about himself and the consequences of his arrival. It was not Jesus saying how others should act in relation to one another.
3) Even if it was meant for some kind of pass on civility or attitude and behavior: there's a vast range of these. This is the same guy who said Love thy neighbor as thyself. So some attitudes and creating division and not caring what people think is going to be problematic and not well justified by what Jesus said about himself.

[Immanuel Can]

A bit facile, that. What it doesn't explain is the complete inability of the Left to locate these alleged masses of slavering conservatives who are lurking out there, waiting to spring.

It's the same with the rabid "Lefty" communists...

Actually, it's not.

Here you go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_kWXTuA56A or here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klVhCkhOTRQ or here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1mxJMIIMuE or here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_4FluN2Wsk.

It's that easy to find them.

[Immanuel Can]

However, you make me mindful of this:

Jesus said: “Therefore, everyone who confesses Me before people, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before people, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.

Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to turn a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a person’s enemies will be the members of his household." (Matt.10:32-36)

So much for the idea that being a Christian is some kind of "public relations" exercise, and that if people don't like what you say, then you're not doing your job.

2) this was Jesus talking about himself and the consequences of his arrival. It was not Jesus saying how others should act in relation to one another.

Heh. You didn't read it.

Who is the "person" of whom He is speaking? You didn't even notice that.

[Harbal]

Here you go:

Sorry, IC, I don't do links.

[Immanuel Can]

Here you go:

Sorry, IC, I don't do links.

That's your choice. But you can trust me, if you don't care to check: it's really, really easy to find the Lefties, and very hard to find any conservatives gathered and operating in any similar way.

If you watch the news at all, you know I'm telling you the truth about that: the reports of "neo-Nazis" and hordes of radical conservatives go unevidenced, and the hordes of Lefties are brushed off as "mostly peaceful protests."

[Iwannaplato]

However, you make me mindful of this:

Jesus said: “Therefore, everyone who confesses Me before people, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before people, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.

Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to turn a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a person’s enemies will be the members of his household." (Matt.10:32-36)

So much for the idea that being a Christian is some kind of "public relations" exercise, and that if people don't like what you say, then you're not doing your job.

2) this was Jesus talking about himself and the consequences of his arrival. It was not Jesus saying how others should act in relation to one another.

Heh. You didn't read it.

Who is the "person" of whom He is speaking? You didn't even notice that.

Does 'he' mean Jesus? He says 'I'. So, I assume himself. But let me know. I did hop into a discussion, perhaps blindly.

[Immanuel Can]

2) this was Jesus talking about himself and the consequences of his arrival. It was not Jesus saying how others should act in relation to one another.

Heh. You didn't read it.

Who is the "person" of whom He is speaking? You didn't even notice that.

Does 'he' mean Jesus? He says 'I'. So, I assume himself. But let me know. I did hop into a discussion, perhaps blindly.

Just check the verse. He says "I" have brought the "sword," and "a person's" enemies...etc. So that must not be Him. It must be some other "persons." And who would they be?

[Iwannaplato]

Heh. You didn't read it.

Who is the "person" of whom He is speaking? You didn't even notice that.

Does 'he' mean Jesus? He says 'I'. So, I assume himself. But let me know. I did hop into a discussion, perhaps blindly.

Just check the verse. He says "I" have brought the "sword," and "a person's" enemies...etc. So that must not be Him. It must be some other "persons." And who would they be?

Just tell me how you interpret it, please. The sword is the fact that they will be believers and that has consequnces. Not that they will weild a sword.