“Woke”

[tyr_13]

I said that we've no reason to believe "love your enemies" came from the mouth of the table-flipping character and I stand by that.

So what? They're still the teachings of Jesus, as complied by various Christian sects through almost two thousand years. 'This one might not have really been Jesus' just doesn't matter; all of them might not have really been Jesus. The one you think doesn't count could well be the closest.

When discussing anything fictional or mythical, it's good ask ask why anyone should take life advice from it.

No, not when no one (here) is saying we should be taking life advice from it. That's not the point of contention.

You made it sound as if the very idea of "MAP" was made up by anti-woke folks.

Ah, I see the confusion now. No, they didn't come up with the term, they leverage the existence of the clinical terminology to pretend the 'wokees' (as some regressives inexplicably call them) want raping children to be a protected sexual orientation the same as all the non-straight ones. (The lumping in of all people who sexually abuse children with actual minor attracted people, when the former are largely not actually MAP in the first place, is another, broader, problem.)

Sorry, that one likely is on my curt phrasing.

Why? The story about the moneylenders might come from a totally different source than the story of the Sermon on the Mount. In fact I'd bet money that it does. Matthew and Luke are known to draw from both Mark, which was the first written and is also known to be drawn from multiple sources, and a source called the "Q Gospel" which is no longer extant, but which appears to have been a collection of statements and sayings that were attributed to Jesus in those gospels. The character that Mark depicts and the character that said the things that Q collated could have been two very different people.

Which really doesn't matter; it's still the teachings of Jesus for any meaningful definition of it. Does the last Wheel of Time book not count because Brandon Sanderson wrote it?

The idea that the 'teachings of Jesus' means only those that can be attributed with relative certainty to an actual man who went by Jesus who might not even have existed is fun for deep religion dives, but completely beside the point for what modern Christians claim to follow. They claim to follow the teachings as complied in the few still used versions of the Bible, and Mark is part of that.

You know, canon. Headcanon need not apply in that context.

 

[d4m10n]

So what?

At #560 you seem to be assuming that the fellow (whether historical, allegorical, or fictional) who flipped over the tables was familiar with "love your enemies" as an aphorism worth living out. I would contend that this implicit assumption leans on Christian dogma, which I'd not expect to go unquestioned by skeptics familiar with how those collections of sayings and events got pulled together in the first place.

Let's say "hippie" Jesus was the guy who counseled loving one's enemies, turning one's cheek, giving up one's cloak also, etc.

Let's say "woke" Jesus was the guy who flips out and deplatforms moneychangers (b/c they violate his narrow conception of what it means to keep the Jewish Temple sacred before YHWH).

There is no reason given to conclude these two characters are related, except in the sense that they were later compiled into the same collections of stories.

 

[Hercules56]

I don't see where the dividing line would be between liberalism and wokism. Are libertarians woke? I'd expect them to be in favour of at will divorce.

Liberals are not "Woke". We don't try to fire or hurt people because they express Politically Incorrect beliefs. That's what the Wokers do.

 

[bruto]

Liberals are not "Woke". We don't try to fire or hurt people because they express Politically Incorrect beliefs. That's what the Wokers do.

If that's the definition of "woke," the Trump crowd must be positively caffeinated.

 

[Hercules56]

Conservative students threatened with disciplinary action by Woke school staff, for having anti-Communist display on school property.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/chicago-...ens-conservative-students-disciplinary-action

 

[arthwollipot]

Which really doesn't matter; it's still the teachings of Jesus for any meaningful definition of it. Does the last Wheel of Time book not count because Brandon Sanderson wrote it?

The idea that the 'teachings of Jesus' means only those that can be attributed with relative certainty to an actual man who went by Jesus who might not even have existed is fun for deep religion dives, but completely beside the point for what modern Christians claim to follow. They claim to follow the teachings as complied in the few still used versions of the Bible, and Mark is part of that.

You know, canon. Headcanon need not apply in that context.

I think you're missing the point, but going into detail would be way off-topic for this thread so I won't press the issue.

 

[tyr_13]

At #560 you seem to be assuming that the fellow (whether historical, allegorical, or fictional) who flipped over the tables was familiar with "love your enemies" as an aphorism worth living out.

I did no such thing. Correctly describing Christian canon isn't endorsing it.

I would contend that this implicit assumption leans on Christian dogma, which I'd not expect to go unquestioned by skeptics familiar with how those collections of sayings and events got pulled together in the first place.

It isn't unquestioned just because your question doesn't matter in this context. I also don't have to endorse Islam, nor is it evidence that I don't question it, to describe the teachings found in the Quran.

I fully expect the passive-aggressive 'I'm the true skeptic' act.

Let's say "hippie" Jesus was the guy who counseled loving one's enemies, turning one's cheek, giving up one's cloak also, etc.

Let's say "woke" Jesus was the guy who flips out and deplatforms moneychangers (b/c they violate his narrow conception of what it means to keep the Jewish Temple sacred before YHWH).

There is no reason given to conclude these two characters are related, except in the sense that they were later compiled into the same collections of stories.

Ha, both would be considered 'woke' from detractors of 'woke'.

But more importantly, 'except in the only sense we'd even be talking about them in the first place, how are they related?' is a caveat that swallows your argument. 'How is Jesus related to Jesus' might be my new favorite argument related to 'wokeness'.

See also...

So what? They're still the teachings of Jesus, as complied by various Christian sects through almost two thousand years. 'This one might not have really been Jesus' just doesn't matter; all of them might not have really been Jesus. The one you think doesn't count could well be the closest.

 

[shuttlt]

Liberals are not "Woke". We don't try to fire or hurt people because they express Politically Incorrect beliefs. That's what the Wokers do.

I thought you wouldn't think those things were woke. I was confused though by this: "The right to end a marriage, for reasons you decide require it, is Woke." Maybe I misunderstood the sentence. Were you saying at will divorce is woke? I was trying to say that a libertarian might support at will divorce, and yet not be woke. Either I'm seeing a contradiction here, or I'm failing to understand you.

 

[shuttlt]

I had been under the impression that although Kendi (and his followers) claim that disproportional racial representation in a field means that there is structural racism in that field, he does not claim that means there is current discrimination in the field. To me, it is obvious that there can be no current discrimination in (say) hiring and promotion in a field, yet there could still be disproportional representation in it. One obvious possible cause of that would be if there had been discrimination in the past.

I happen to be, at present, collaborating on a paper where the distinction between disproportionate representation being racism per se (my understanding of Kendi) and disproportionate representation implying that there is current discrimination against Blacks (my understanding of your understanding of Kendi) is relevant. FWIW, my co-authors agree with the latter.

I may need to reread my Kendi to answer you properly here. What I was thinking of is the idea that what any particular culture rewards is itself culturally determined. Chapter 7 of How to be an Anti-Racist. I take it you have read Weber? I'm thinking of his protestant work ethic. You've got a bunch of people there who are hard working and driven and think that hard working, driven people should be given status and wealth. Well they would, wouldn't they. Not all societies reward the same behaviours. Some places reward loyalty more than hard work. Some places put more value on agreeableness. Some go for short term gain, some save for the long term.

So you have different cultures with different behaviours, and different choices being made about what behaviours to reward and what to punish. There is no neutral system. Unless one wants to make everybody culturally uniform, then the only way to have a system that does not discriminate in this way is to be constantly putting your thumb on the scale.

From the first few lines of that How to be an Anti-Racist chapter:

"CULTURAL ANTIRACIST: One who is rejecting cultural standards and equalizing differences amongst racial groups."

Am I misinterpreting him? His book is an almost content free series of anecdotes, with a few aphorisms thrown in. But look, he seems to be against changing black culture, he is also against cultural standards. How do you equalise differences between groups without making the groups themselves change? The only thing you can do is change what aspects of particular cultures society rewards and punishes.

"To be antiracist is to see all cultures in all their differences as on the same level, as equals."

This is kind of a deepity statement, he could just mean spiritually equal... in which case he isn't really saying anything interesting. The issue is that he gives practical examples, like wanting to submit school work in ebonics. He is talking about getting the same rewards from society for all cultures, while not asking those cultures to change. That is a radical demand.

 

[Hercules56]

I thought you wouldn't think those things were woke. I was confused though by this: "The right to end a marriage, for reasons you decide require it, is Woke." Maybe I misunderstood the sentence. Were you saying at will divorce is woke? I was trying to say that a libertarian might support at will divorce, and yet not be woke. Either I'm seeing a contradiction here, or I'm failing to understand you.

Yes I am saying at will divorce is something that Woker people would believe in. But obviously other people who believe in human rights would also believe in.

 

[d4m10n]

I did no such thing. Correctly describing Christian canon isn't endorsing it.

This is a good point, assuming the person you were replying to at #560 has committed to taking NT canon as a whole.

 

[ZiprHead]

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,37&q="minor+attracted"&btnG=

Sent from my LMGTFY 9000 using Tapatalk

Pedophile is a subset of minor-attracted people.

 

[theprestige]

Pedophile is a subset of minor-attracted people.

I'm pretty sure MAP is actually a neologism coined by pro-pedophilia activists to keep talking about their interests while avoiding the stigma.

 

[ZiprHead]

I'm pretty sure MAP is actually a neologism coined by pro-pedophilia activists to keep talking about their interests while avoiding the stigma.

Understanding the terminology

Paedophilia

Hebephilia and ephebophilia

Differences explained in the link.

 

[theprestige]

Understanding the terminology

Paedophilia

Hebephilia and ephebophilia

Differences explained in the link.

I'm familiar with the terminology discussed there. I'm well aware of the distinction between pedophilia and other paraphilias focused on minors.

But that page does not discuss the term "minor attracted person". I think you are making a reasonable logical inference from the component words. I'm pretty sure that inference is mistaken. I'm pretty sure that it's an effort at rebranding, by pro pedophilia activists. And I'm sad to see it seems to be working.

 

[arthwollipot]

Quibbling about the difference between paedophilia and hebephilia is a bit pointless when everybody knows what we're talking about.

 

[tyr_13]

This is a good point, assuming the person you were replying to at #560 has committed to taking NT canon as a whole.

...no...what?

The point is that the anti-woke Christians, who as a group do in fact claim to believe the teachings of Jesus are in the New Testament, claim to follow the word of Jesus while decrying many of the things he teaches as 'woke'.

And that includes Mark.

What theprestige personally thinks about the myths isn't a factor. Why would it be?

 

[d4m10n]

What theprestige personally thinks about the myths isn't a factor. Why would it be?

Because theprestige was the person you were actually replying to in that post, obviously. If he's committed to saying that hippie Jesus and woke Jesus are the same dude, then yup, it's a decent rejoinder. If not, for whom is the rejoinder intended? Random Xn's lurking the thread, I suppose.

 

[jt512]

I had been under the impression that although Kendi (and his followers) claim that disproportional racial representation in a field means that there is structural racism in that field, he does not claim that means there is current discrimination in the field. To me, it is obvious that there can be no current discrimination in (say) hiring and promotion in a field, yet there could still be disproportional representation in it. One obvious possible cause of that would be if there had been discrimination in the past.

I happen to be, at present, collaborating on a paper where the distinction between disproportionate representation being racism per se (my understanding of Kendi) and disproportionate representation implying that there is current discrimination against Blacks (my understanding of your understanding of Kendi) is relevant. FWIW, my co-authors agree with the latter.

I may need to reread my Kendi to answer you properly here. What I was thinking of is the idea that what any particular culture rewards is itself culturally determined. Chapter 7 of How to be an Anti-Racist. I take it you have read Weber?

The paper I'm co-authoring is a collaboration of 30 authors from very diverse fields from the natural sciences, social sciences, mathematics, and philosophy. I'm a co-author because I'm a statistician. So, perhaps not surprisingly, I haven't read Weber or even know who he is or was. I'm somewhat embarrassed to say I haven't even read Kendi's book. I don't think I could stomach it. As you said, it's a collection of deepities, or as McWhorter has put it, Kendi is "an empty suit."

So what I've learned about Kendi's "work," I've learned second-hand. Relatedly, today I was directed to this essay, which is the most concise, readable explanation of Critical Social Justice (CSJ), including the Kendi version of if, I have ever seen. The author writes that according to CSJ,

"Knowledge is constructed to advantage oppressor groups at the expense of oppressed groups. As such, science, which was developed primarily by white European males, is used to establish and perpetuate the domination of whites, Europeans, and males at the expense of everyone else... Science is inherently and irredeemably 'racist.'"

That basically aligns with my understanding of what CSJ ideologues mean when they say science is "racist." They are referring to the supposed existence of a deep structural racism. They are not claiming that underrepresentation of Blacks in the natural sciences is due to discrimination in the present, as some of my colleagues think they are.

 

[Lplus]

The paper I'm co-authoring is a collaboration of 30 authors from very diverse fields from the natural sciences, social sciences, mathematics, and philosophy. I'm a co-author because I'm a statistician. So, perhaps not surprisingly, I haven't read Weber or even know who he is or was. I'm somewhat embarrassed to say I haven't even read Kendi's book. I don't think I could stomach it. As you said, it's a collection of deepities, or as McWhorter has put it, Kendi is "an empty suit."

So what I've learned about Kendi's "work," I've learned second-hand. Relatedly, today I was directed to this essay, which is the most concise, readable explanation of Critical Social Justice (CSJ), including the Kendi version of if, I have ever seen. The author writes that according to CSJ,

"Knowledge is constructed to advantage oppressor groups at the expense of oppressed groups. As such, science, which was developed primarily by white European males, is used to establish and perpetuate the domination of whites, Europeans, and males at the expense of everyone else... Science is inherently and irredeemably 'racist.'"

That basically aligns with my understanding of what CSJ ideologues mean when they say science is "racist." They are referring to the supposed existence of a deep structural racism. They are not claiming that underrepresentation of Blacks in the natural sciences is due to discrimination in the present, as some of my colleagues think they are.

Interesting essay. A pity it is restricted to the application of CSJ to the sciences.