Open Letter to Woke Students

[Immanuel Can]

So let me put it back to you, Gary: I think I already know your answer. You're going to say there's too much. Okay. Tell me what indicators you use to prove to yourself that the amount of suffering in this world isn't the right amount already.

Is there such a thing as a "right amount of suffering"?

That's my question to you.

If there's not a "right amount," then you can't say "This isn't the right amount," can you?

Even if you think the "right amount" is zero, you have to have something in mind. So exactly what is it?

P.S. -- All of this is still wildly off topic. Could we get back to Lindsay? That would be nice.

[Gary Childress]

So let me put it back to you, Gary: I think I already know your answer. You're going to say there's too much. Okay. Tell me what indicators you use to prove to yourself that the amount of suffering in this world isn't the right amount already.

Is there such a thing as a "right amount of suffering"?

That's my question to you.

If there's not a "right amount," then you can't say "This isn't the right amount," can you?

Even if you think the "right amount" is zero, you have to have something in mind. So exactly what is it?

P.S. -- All of this is still wildly off topic. Could we get back to Lindsay? That would be nice.

I never said there is a "right amount", I said there is "too much".

It's like a doctor asking someone, "How much pain would you like to feel during the procedure?"

Answer: "As little as possible."

Doctor: "I'm sorry but you'll have to choose an amount."

Sounds like that would make an award-winning Monty Python skit to me. What kind of morbid mind do you possess?

[Gary Childress]

P.S. -- All of this is still wildly off topic. Could we get back to Lindsay? That would be nice.

OK. What is Lindsay's solution to the present conflict between social groups vying to flourish in society? It sounds to me like he wants to suppress some voices and not others.

[Immanuel Can]

Is there such a thing as a "right amount of suffering"?

That's my question to you.

If there's not a "right amount," then you can't say "This isn't the right amount," can you?

Even if you think the "right amount" is zero, you have to have something in mind. So exactly what is it?

P.S. -- All of this is still wildly off topic. Could we get back to Lindsay? That would be nice.

I never said there is a "right amount", I said there is "too much".

I heard you.

But if you say "too much," you HAVE to believe you would also know what the right amount is. There's no other possibility, logically speaking.

If somebody gives you "too much" ice cream, it can only happen if you know what "not-too-much" or "the right amount" would be. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke.

Maybe what you've already got is "the right amount." You wouldn't know, then.

It's like a doctor asking someone, "How much pain would you like to feel during the procedure?"

Answer: "As little as possible."

Not necessarily a wise answer. Perhaps some pain is necessary. Perhaps some indicates that the patient's neural system is in good operation...and that would be good. Total insensitiviy to pain produces gangrene and loss of body parts, because pain is supposed to signal to us the potential for injury. Inabiliity to feel pain is called "numbness" or "deadness." A woman giving birth has pain; but somehow, she still wants to do it. All relationships cause pain; but somehow we want them, too. Athletic competitions are painful, and yet we voluntarily undertake them.

But when are we stopping the pity-party, and getting back to Lindsay? Anytime soon, Gary?

[Gary Childress]

That's my question to you.

If there's not a "right amount," then you can't say "This isn't the right amount," can you?

Even if you think the "right amount" is zero, you have to have something in mind. So exactly what is it?

P.S. -- All of this is still wildly off topic. Could we get back to Lindsay? That would be nice.

I never said there is a "right amount", I said there is "too much".

I heard you.

But if you say "too much," you HAVE to believe you would also know what the right amount is. There's no other possibility, logically speaking.

If somebody gives you "too much" ice cream, it can only happen if you know what "not-too-much" or "the right amount" would be. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke.

Maybe what you've already got is "the right amount." You wouldn't know, then.

It's like a doctor asking someone, "How much pain would you like to feel during the procedure?"

Answer: "As little as possible."

Not necessarily a wise answer. Perhaps some pain is necessary. Perhaps some indicates that the patient's neural system is in good operation...and that would be good. Total insensitiviy to pain produces gangrene and loss of body parts, because pain is supposed to signal to us the potential for injury. Inabiliity to feel pain is called "numbness" or "deadness." A woman giving birth has pain; but somehow, she still wants to do it. All relationships cause pain; but somehow we want them, too. Athletic competitions are painful, and yet we voluntarily undertake them.

But when are we stopping the pity-party, and getting back to Lindsay? Anytime soon, Gary?

Good lord. We have descended into a Monty Python skit.

[Immanuel Can]

OK. What is Lindsay's solution to the present conflict between social groups vying to flourish in society?

The podcast's not about that. If you bothered to listen to it, you'd know that, I'm certain.

It sounds to me like he wants to suppress some voices and not others.

I do. Let's suppress the voices of those who don't know anything about Lindsay, and make them go elsewhere. Let's really "oppress" and "devoice" them, and "invalidate their lived experience," just like the Neo-Marxists always tell us we're doing, even when we don't realize we're doing it.

Let's hear the voices of those who have actually listened to the short podcast. Good for you?

[Immanuel Can]

Good lord. We have descended into a Monty Python skit.

Yes. It's "The Argument Clinic."

[Gary Childress]

OK. What is Lindsay's solution to the present conflict between social groups vying to flourish in society?

The podcast's not about that. If you bothered to listen to it, you'd know that, I'm certain.

It sounds to me like he wants to suppress some voices and not others.

I do. Let's suppress the voices of those who don't know anything about Lindsay, and make them go elsewhere. Let's really "oppress" and "devoice" them, and "invalidate their lived experience," just like the Neo-Marxists always tell us we're doing, even when we don't realize we're doing it.

Let's hear the voices of those who have actually listened to the short podcast. Good for you?

I listened to the "open letter". He repeated several times to the "woke" that "you are disposable" and accused the "woke" of "Maoism". Toward the end he made the assertion that liberty is a "destructive lie" and we cannot be liberated from "Truth and reality". What do you make of that assertion?

[Immanuel Can]

I listened to the "open letter". He repeated several times to the "woke" that "you are disposable" and accused the "woke" of "Maoism". Toward the end he made the assertion that liberty is a "destructive lie" and we cannot be liberated from "Truth and reality". What do you make of that assertion?

You almost got it right. He says that the Maoist promise of liberty is a destructive lie, and is really an attempt to so-called "liberate" people from truth and reality. In other words, the Maoists-Neo-Marxists are only offering a false "liberty," not any real liberty.

And that's exactly right. The Marxists always devour their own "red guard." For when the revolution's over, then the "red guard" is a liability, instantly. They're capable of revolt. So they must be ruthlessly eliminated.

That's the future of all the Wokies. They're sharpening the Marxist knife for their own necks.

[Gary Childress]

I listened to the "open letter". He repeated several times to the "woke" that "you are disposable" and accused the "woke" of "Maoism". Toward the end he made the assertion that liberty is a "destructive lie" and we cannot be liberated from "Truth and reality". What do you make of that assertion?

You almost got it right. He says that the Maoist promise of liberty is a destructive lie, and is really an attempt to so-called "liberate" people from truth and reality. In other words, the Maoists-Neo-Marxists are only offering a false "liberty," not any real liberty.

And that's exactly right. The Marxists always devour their own "red guard." For when the revolution's over, then the "red guard" is a liability, instantly. They're capable of revolt. So they must be ruthlessly eliminated.

That's the future of all the Wokies. They're sharpening the Marxist knife for their own necks.

Ok. Do see socialism as Marxism or do you see Marxism as socialism gone wrong?

[Immanuel Can]

Ok. Do see socialism as Marxism or do you see Marxism as socialism gone wrong?

Potato-potahto.

Socialism itself is a confused project. It's premised on some seriously wrong assumptions about human nature and human behaviour. Socialists want to imagine that the collective...by which they really mean the government...will love them, and care for them, and treat them well. It's as if they think "capitalist" nature is one thing, but "socialist" nature is another. However, human nature is human nature. And human nature is fallen.

The wicked among human beings will always eventually outmanoeuver the morally earnest and sincere, and seize power, because the upright are constrained to do only moral things, and the wicked can do whatever serves their turn. The wicked can lie, bully, slander and kill; the morally earnest have to tell the truth, play fairly, remain honest, take no more than their share, and not harm other people. So to fall into the hands of men is to fall into the hands of the corruptible, the selfish, the cruel and the unjust.

Socialist ideology just wants us to keep forgetting that. It keeps telling us that when Socialism is properly instituted, human nature will change, and the wicked will disappear. But they never do. And Socialist ideology is the handiest tool the wicked have to subdue those who are morally earnest, because it exploits their honesty and their humanitarian aspirations to silence them from being able to criticize what the wicked are doing.

"How could you not be a Socialist," goes the argument, "Don't you care about people?"

And that's why Socialism doesn't just occasionally go wrong; it always does. And that's as true whether you call it Marxism, or Maoism, or Democratic Socialism, or whatever.

[Gary Childress]

Ok. Do see socialism as Marxism or do you see Marxism as socialism gone wrong?

Potato-potahto.

Socialism itself is a confused project. It's premised on some seriously wrong assumptions about human nature and human behaviour. Socialists want to imagine that the collective...by which they really mean the government...will love them, and care for them, and treat them well. It's as if they think "capitalist" nature is one thing, but "socialist" nature is another. However, human nature is human nature. And human nature is fallen.

If human nature is "fallen", then why should ANY form of political or economic organization work? And without any form of political or economic organization, how would individuals tackle monumental tasks like space travel or worldwide transportation and information systems without working together in an organized and cooperative manner? Or do you think we are better off without doing those things?

[Immanuel Can]

Ok. Do see socialism as Marxism or do you see Marxism as socialism gone wrong?

Potato-potahto.

Socialism itself is a confused project. It's premised on some seriously wrong assumptions about human nature and human behaviour. Socialists want to imagine that the collective...by which they really mean the government...will love them, and care for them, and treat them well. It's as if they think "capitalist" nature is one thing, but "socialist" nature is another. However, human nature is human nature. And human nature is fallen.

If human nature is "fallen", then why should ANY form of political or economic organization work?

If we mean, "work very well," then none do. And for the same reason. Human nature being what it is, any political arrangment is, at best, temporary. It has to be maintained with vigilance, and by means of checks-and-balances on the untrustworthy facts of human nature. But at the end of the day, they all are provisional and temporary.

Think of political strategies as being like car tires: some are bad, and wear out fast; some are better, and last longer. All are fallible and tend to wear out over time, or are subject to punctures, if we're not careful.

But you can't have a car without tires, and you can't have a society without politics of some kind. The more we remember that all political arrangments are provisional and fallible, the better off we are.

The real danger is utopianism, because it surrenders power into the hand of whomever is devious enough to seize it first, and then denies the need to mistrust the political plan: and that's true whether we're speaking of a Theocracy, a Monarchy or a Socialist state. They all generate tyrannies, because they don't regard themselves as provisional, temporary or flawed.

[Gary Childress]

Potato-potahto.

Socialism itself is a confused project. It's premised on some seriously wrong assumptions about human nature and human behaviour. Socialists want to imagine that the collective...by which they really mean the government...will love them, and care for them, and treat them well. It's as if they think "capitalist" nature is one thing, but "socialist" nature is another. However, human nature is human nature. And human nature is fallen.

If human nature is "fallen", then why should ANY form of political or economic organization work?

If we mean, "work very well," then none do. And for the same reason. Human nature being what it is, any political arrangment is, at best, temporary. It has to be maintained with vigilance, and by means of checks-and-balances on the untrustworthy facts of human nature. But at the end of the day, they all are provisional and temporary.

Think of political strategies as being like car tires: some are bad, and wear out fast; some are better, and last longer. All are fallible and tend to wear out over time, or are subject to punctures, if we're not careful.

But you can't have a car without tires, and you can't have a society without politics of some kind. The more we remember that all political arrangments are provisional and fallible, the better off we are.

The real danger is utopianism, because it surrenders power into the hand of whomever is devious enough to seize it first, and then denies the need to mistrust the political plan: and that's true whether we're speaking of a Theocracy, a Monarchy or a Socialist state. They all generate tyrannies, because they don't regard themselves as provisional, temporary or flawed.

Some things aren't "provisional", Travel and communication require maintenance. Infrastructure has to be maintained if only to enable commerce. I don't see individuals paving and repaving the roads in front of their own houses, fixing downed electric lines, or repairing what's been destroyed by a natural disaster (AKA an "act of God"). I see humanity as the keeper of reason, morality, ideals, and such. The world out there doesn't have them. If cockroaches overrun the world and devour every other being, I don't suppose cockroaches would start talking about "habitat restoration" and things of that nature. Rocks orbiting each other in space don't have morality as far as I'm aware. That is something man-made based on our own sense of conscience, fear of death, and avoidance of suffering. We are able to look at others that are not ourselves and reason how we would feel if we were in their shoes. In what way does God even do that? Does God say to him(or her)self, "Wow, it must be horrible to drown like that in the flood"? If so, then I would suspect God would not have conjured a flood.

No. There's something fundamentally wrong with the Abrahamic religions. If we are "fallen" then what is "fallenness?" "Fallen" compared to what--a God who creates floods, tests a devout follower's devotion by asking if he will murder his own child, or tells his "chosen" people to murder whole tribes down to the last woman and child? When I look at stuff like that, I see a fallen "god", not fallen mortals who sometimes do evil out of desperation, passion, or ignorance. We are certainly fallible. Yhwh, whom you say is "perfect", has no such excuse. Or is doing the right thing a sign of "imperfection?"

You want very badly for Yhwh to be real. Given that there is no evidence of there being a God at all, why do you want Yhwh to be real? Why do you wish for a God like Yhwh to be real? Based on what is written in the Bible, do you think a God like that is a just God? Why not just bite the bullet and say, "There's no God" or else "I know nothing of God"?

[Immanuel Can]

Some things aren't "provisional", Travel and communication require maintenance.

Things that "require maintenance" are provisional.

Telegrams and streetcars served their purposes in their day. And they required maintenance, because without it, they'd soon fall apart. But we don't need that technology now. We've moved on.

I see humanity as the keeper of reason, morality, ideals, and such.

Then explain the war in Ukraine. How did that happen, when on both sides there were only the "keepers of reason, morality and ideals"?

We are able to look at others that are not ourselves and reason how we would feel if we were in their shoes. In what way does God even do that?

You've never heard of the Incarnation, have you?

If we are "fallen" then what is "fallenness?"

It means that at one point we were created innocent; but we are not innocent now. It means that man was created for fellowship with God, but that now he has rejected that and is out of joint with the Source of all goodness, truth and light.

When I look at stuff like that, I see a fallen "god"...

That's because you mistakenly blame God for what men have done. But you don't really know what you're asking for: are you asking God to terminate the fallenness of man? If you are, you're calling for divine judgment. Do you want that? How soon?

Given that there is no evidence of there being a God at all,

That's plainly untrue. Sorry, Gary. And you have no way of knowing that, obviously.

What you must mean is "Gary doesn't know God." And I believe you. Why should I doubt your word?

Why not just bite the bullet and say, "There's no God" or else "I know nothing of God"?

You'd want me to lie to you, Gary? Does that seem "brave" to you? It doesn't, to me.