I don't hear a lot of self-awareness in this piece. A High-Net-Worth philosopher who is married to a High-Net-Worth lawyer is complaining about the lack of educated males. Who created that situation? Who made colleges toxic hell for males? It was High-Net-Worth philosophers and High-Net-Worth lawyers.
You baked the cake, and now you're complaining because you have to eat it. No sympathy.
I understood "wokeness" to be a religion several years ago. But this is important: I understood "wokeness" to be a fundamentalist, anti-dialectical type of religion. The opposite of let's say much of Judaism or Catholicism.
Wish that Ms. Bruenig had made that distinction. I would have expected her to have seen that, perhaps she has, but she neglected to mention it.
The question for her is that as a socially liberal Catholic, does she believe that salvation is universal and based on good deeds? My mother was an Auschwitz survivor who rejected the claims of Christianity. If Hitler had sincerely accepted Jesus before dying, would he be in heaven and my mother be in hell?
The Bible is contradictory on this topic.
In Ephesians 2: 8-9, it says "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."
Yet, in James 2:17, it says "Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead."
It would be very hard to be a "liberal" anything and yet believe that the ultimate force in the universe will punish otherwise good people just because they chose the wrong religion or chose no religion.
If she thinks that some form of believing that Jesus is divine is no longer necessary for otherwise good people to avoid eternal damnation, as a Catholic, albeit a liberal one, would she hold onto this more universal view even if a new pope replaced Francis and declared ex cathedra that only those who accept Jesus can get into heaven?
What I would say to Bruenig is that you can't have it both ways, you can't bring your religion into politics and expect the "politeness deal" about other people's religious beliefs that's done so much to keep the peace in liberal societies. Make your religion political, and your religious beliefs become as legitimate a subject for criticism as your political beliefs.
Why doesn't she just stop looking at Twitter? The whole "I'm super progressive but I'm not an atheist" thing would be normal in the real world. She's not controversial, just spending too much time responding to social media. Any sane person would imagine they're problematic doing that.
“I want a generous welfare state. I want to abolish poverty. I want peace. I want forgiveness. I want high social trust. And I want strong relationships between the citizenry,” that would piss people off.
Probably because in your statement is a moral contradiction. There will not be peace if people attempt to “abolish property.” That has never been the case historically and never will be the case in the future, because any complete abolition of property will require violence or the threat of violence to capture the property that is desired to be “abolished.”
Many “Christian Democratic Socialists” are under the erroneous idea that if property is taken under the mandate of a violent majority, rather than a violent minority, it is therefore “peaceful.” The only way that property is ever “abolished” peacefully is if it is done so voluntarily without the threat or use of violence. But that will certainly not happen in the US or any other modern liberal state.
Just because a gang takes property rather than an individual doesn’t make the action of the gang any more moral. The democratic consensus of an action does not automatically bestow the action with righteousness.
If Elizabeth or any other socialist wishes to abolish property she and they should begin with their own. All the “Bernie bros” should be appalled by the hypocrisy of millionaire socialists like Bernie extolling the virtue of property abolishment and state distribution of income and labor. Elizabeth can begin abolishing property by abolishing her own to me if she wishes. I assure you I will not distribute it out of superficial self interest, but use it for charitable purposes.
I don't hear a lot of self-awareness in this piece. A High-Net-Worth philosopher who is married to a High-Net-Worth lawyer is complaining about the lack of educated males. Who created that situation? Who made colleges toxic hell for males? It was High-Net-Worth philosophers and High-Net-Worth lawyers.
You baked the cake, and now you're complaining because you have to eat it. No sympathy.
I understood "wokeness" to be a religion several years ago. But this is important: I understood "wokeness" to be a fundamentalist, anti-dialectical type of religion. The opposite of let's say much of Judaism or Catholicism.
Wish that Ms. Bruenig had made that distinction. I would have expected her to have seen that, perhaps she has, but she neglected to mention it.
The question for her is that as a socially liberal Catholic, does she believe that salvation is universal and based on good deeds? My mother was an Auschwitz survivor who rejected the claims of Christianity. If Hitler had sincerely accepted Jesus before dying, would he be in heaven and my mother be in hell?
The Bible is contradictory on this topic.
In Ephesians 2: 8-9, it says "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."
Yet, in James 2:17, it says "Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead."
It would be very hard to be a "liberal" anything and yet believe that the ultimate force in the universe will punish otherwise good people just because they chose the wrong religion or chose no religion.
If she thinks that some form of believing that Jesus is divine is no longer necessary for otherwise good people to avoid eternal damnation, as a Catholic, albeit a liberal one, would she hold onto this more universal view even if a new pope replaced Francis and declared ex cathedra that only those who accept Jesus can get into heaven?
What I would say to Bruenig is that you can't have it both ways, you can't bring your religion into politics and expect the "politeness deal" about other people's religious beliefs that's done so much to keep the peace in liberal societies. Make your religion political, and your religious beliefs become as legitimate a subject for criticism as your political beliefs.
Why doesn't she just stop looking at Twitter? The whole "I'm super progressive but I'm not an atheist" thing would be normal in the real world. She's not controversial, just spending too much time responding to social media. Any sane person would imagine they're problematic doing that.
“I want a generous welfare state. I want to abolish poverty. I want peace. I want forgiveness. I want high social trust. And I want strong relationships between the citizenry,” that would piss people off.
Probably because in your statement is a moral contradiction. There will not be peace if people attempt to “abolish property.” That has never been the case historically and never will be the case in the future, because any complete abolition of property will require violence or the threat of violence to capture the property that is desired to be “abolished.”
Many “Christian Democratic Socialists” are under the erroneous idea that if property is taken under the mandate of a violent majority, rather than a violent minority, it is therefore “peaceful.” The only way that property is ever “abolished” peacefully is if it is done so voluntarily without the threat or use of violence. But that will certainly not happen in the US or any other modern liberal state.
Just because a gang takes property rather than an individual doesn’t make the action of the gang any more moral. The democratic consensus of an action does not automatically bestow the action with righteousness.
If Elizabeth or any other socialist wishes to abolish property she and they should begin with their own. All the “Bernie bros” should be appalled by the hypocrisy of millionaire socialists like Bernie extolling the virtue of property abolishment and state distribution of income and labor. Elizabeth can begin abolishing property by abolishing her own to me if she wishes. I assure you I will not distribute it out of superficial self interest, but use it for charitable purposes.