I’m dumbstruck as to what to do. The US is building literal concentration camps, and none of my co-workers care at all.
In fairness, I work in healthcare with an almost exclusively cishet white population who are financially well off.
Many of them espouse to be Christians, and no one cares at all that the American government is following the exact playbook from Nazi Germany.
What do you do? How do you make people care before it’s too late?
I’ve never done something on the scale I’m describing, so this is mostly just speculation, but I hope it could be useful.
First of all, find the people who do care. Talk with them. Make a local antifascist group in a secure messenger (Matrix/XMPP, or at the very least Signal), or join an existing org that you disagree with the least (don’t be afraid of the word “socialist” if you stumble upon them). Do not discuss anything illegal, as it could spell trouble for everyone - you live in an (increasingly) authoritarian country with a wide range of tools to repress you. Keeping it legal at least makes it less likely.
Now that you have a support network, you can start reaching out. Until/unless your organization gains serious traction, unite over common goals instead of squabbling over your differences. DO NOT guilt anyone for being financially well off, voting for the wrong candidate, believing in stupid things, etc. Find people who are somewhat unhappy or unsure about concentration camps. Try convincing them that concentration camps are bad - it probably would be easier if they are on the fence already or if they are being unjustly treated themselves. Show compassion. Do not be condescending or use the words that may trigger them (Nazism, etc), instead appeal to humanity and empathy to specific people who are being repressed. Bring some examples of unjust repression with you. Do not overdo it - you don’t (yet) have to agree on anything except that these concentration camps are bad. Propose to do something together - it can be small at first, like calling your representative or organizing a picket - common action builds connections and mutual understanding.
If the concentration camps were started during the Obama administration and (nobody cared), then were operated during the first Trump admin and (the only caring-concern was performative) then they continued to operate under the Biden admin (while still nobody cared) then why would people suddenly start caring now?
BTW I’m referring to the immigrant concentration camps near the border. What ones are you referring to?
call them american
I dont want to be another i-dont-care-ican
What are we gonna do Franco, Franco Un-American^((franco unamerican - NOFX)^)
exclusively cishet white population who are financially well off.
…there’s your problem.
Why would they care? At worst they’re unaffected. At best they’re benefitting. What is their impetus for change?
You’d like to think some sort of empathy, compassion and solidarity at the very least.
But I guess those are traits the US has very effectively diminished from generation to generation.
I don’t live in the us so I can’t comment on any change that has been or not been.
I do know that privilege itself obscures experience. Compassion and empathy are built on experience. Therefore expecting someone who is privileged to have compassion or empathy to those without the same privilige is unrealistic. They have to be shown, or brought to a point where they can align their experience with others.
Me neither, just commenting on the general disparity between other western countries and the US in most of issues that concern some sort of a moral choice. I have to assume at some point they were equally leaning towards (at least a decoy of a semblance of) common good, as it (as fragile and grayscale as it is) has generally been in the developed west outside of US. Not saying it’s perfect anywhere, but I think we do have to concede that things are, and have been, way more weird and concerning in the US in the past 30 years. Maybe more, but that’s what I have experience with and insight into.
But I believe people can have empathy outside of own experiences. All it takes is some tendency towards curiosity and enough imagination to actually be able to make sense of something as abstract as assuming someone else’s point of view. And empathy besides, which is a little bit of a harder concept and probably requires some inherent traits acquired at birth(?), compassion certainly should be possible for anyone. You can rationally realize others’ troubles without understanding it completely. That just requires caring past one’s own self.
It would of course benefit them if they had the experience. I’ve often, when speaking of such hard and heavy topics, gone on a similar tangent. Perspective, at the end of the day, is the thing everyone ought to have. Experiencing the things yourself is one way, but I think just reading about others struggles and thoughts is a great way to gain that as well. If someone lacks any and all traits required to care about others, then I suppose the perspective evades them until they experience it themselves (this is so common in right-wing politics (doesn’t even have to be far right, even very liberal right falls for this constantly!) even in extremely progressive countries such as mine), but I have to believe there are other ways.
This often comes up with depression and anxiety and outside of the more serious things, just general bad mindsets. A lot of people are having a hard time adjusting to the world as it is today, and that’s so understandable. But when people wonder why Im seemingly able to find light, joy and happiness, hope even, while being generally aware of all this, I don’t really know what else to say, other than tell them I spent several years on the edge of suicide, fighting against these things that were driving me down the ledge. Without going to the specifics, I just always try to give them the understanding that the perspective gained from that, surviving it, finding the way forward, it just helps navigating the struggles to find a little bit of light in everything. But was I somehow less empathetic to the people going through clinical depression before I did myself? No. I was fully aware how horrifying and desperate it can get, I just didn’t really know how it felt, but I was able to imagine a lot of it. And a lot of people, I’ve found, are the same. Most of them, even, though that’s just anecdotal. Maybe people like that tend to herd towards others like that, dunno.
But as sad as it is, it’s so common to see the less empathetic or compassionate people drive hard for certain policies, until the policy kicks them in their own knees via their family or friends or whatever, and suddenly they drive against it. It didn’t matter that someone was suffering from it. It had to be someone they knew, before that suffering mattered. As with e.g the depression, a public figure can be a strong opponent of mental health and just promoting the most awkward stuff like not being stressed by eating an apple and going for a jog or whatever. While those too have merits in general, thats just not even close to answering a lot of the cases where that simply isn’t enough, or even possible, or even good at all. Calling everyone soft and losers with no spine. Then when their own child gets diagnosed after a long while of publicly calling even them, their own blood, losers in need of strong leaders and happy thoughts, suddenly it’s a real thing and mental health is an actual concept that isn’t just hippies feeling down or whatever.
Anyway, don’t know where I’m going with this. I agree with you, but I guess I had some words wanting to get out of my head along similar lines.
Where’s the profit in empathy?
I had some very similar feelings after the 2020 election cycle and COVID stuff. This VSauce video came out around the same time and, unironically I guess, helped convince me of some stuff I’d started to realize with regards to changing people’s minds. https://youtu.be/_ArVh3Cj9rw
Don’t waste your energy on people who won’t listen.
Look for people, places and groups that support your own beliefs.
If you can’t find those people at work, then just be nice to them but not too close. Them in your free time, use your energy to support those people and groups you believe in.
Don’t waste your time on those who won’t listen.
Look for the helpers.
What do you do when those people are your family?
Easier said than done (though recent events have made it a little easier).
Not impossible, look into cult deprogramming. My mother a few years back had a media diet of Steven Crowder and talking heads alike. She has very different views now. Her social life has improved, she dissects political news and generally became a more stable person.
I heard something on a radio show during Covid on how to talk to people who have “gone down the rabbit hole”. It was discussing MAGA as a cult. The guest on the show was a woman who was raised in a cult in the 70’s and she “got out” and spent her time talking with others in the cult to help them to break free. I can’t find a reference to the show, but I think it was Carrie Miller hosting.
My takeaway was that you can’t come at people and tell them that everything they know is wrong and you will show them the way. They’ll fight you. You need to deprogram them similarly to how they were programmed into the cult. Small bits, here and there to slowly guide them to questioning their beliefs. Once that happens, show them how to research and seek out information and let them know that they will be safe.
If someone found a link to the podcast/radio show, I’d be super happy.
This is as inspiring as it is terrifying.
Great comment. Trump won and the amount of people here throwing the Nazi word around still don’t realise how self defeating they are.
You can’t tell someone their an idiot or evil and then expect them to try seeing things your way, you’re much more likely to end up entrenching their beliefs. The goal should be to win them over, that won’t be accomplished by telling them how wrong and stupid they are.
Engage, don’t alienate, no matter how hard that feels at times.
Trump won and the amount of people here throwing the Nazi word around still don’t realise how self defeating they are.
Sometimes you have to call Nazis Nazis. And people who support Nazis are Nazis. And sometimes you can’t deprogram a Nazi.
These aren’t victims. They’re intentionally malicious people.
I have the urge to help victims. I have another urge entirely in regards to Nazis.
Yeah and especially when they created a system that doesn’t even allow you to really vote for somebody who you believe in.
The US is a timebomb which is going to explode.
The moderate right provide a platform for the far right but I don’t think that makes them default Nazi’s.
Besides that, I’m not suggesting that you can always deprogram a Nazi, but you can absolutely target the moderate right swing voters who may not take kindly to being called a Nazi.
Honestly, your point of view is no better than the “all Muslims are terrorists” mantra and people like you will sleep walk us in to another four years of Republican rule.
Yeah you are right, but US politics doesn’t allow for nuances. People aren’t left or right or conservative or progressive. They will have bieves that suit a certain direction on the politic spectrum, but people can have opinions regarding different topics all across the eniter spectrum.
They’re*
The thing is, a lot of these people are literally Nazis, and I’m starting to wonder if it was “people saying Nazi too much” or it was actually “there was a fuckton of Nazis and no one took people saying that seriously and now there’s Nazis around and people are blaming the folks who were warning others about the Nazis for not seeing Nazis soon enough”
Since we’re not in a .world comm, there were just a lot of fucking Nazis. The US has always been significantly further right wing than it’s contemporary nations, at least since the 1800s, but since the 1920s it basically accelerated to light speed. Every minor progressive victory was a half century or more after other countries, and immediately hated by more than half the country; hence why so many rights in the US are tenuous scotus decisions and not laws.
The rest of the world after the 1950s has viewed you guys as the next Nazis. Hell even in WW2 you were only the good guys by comparison, and even then the Soviets were the protagonists of that era with all their flaws.
Only very recently and only in aesthetics has the US really made any strides, and because you chose aesthetics over legislation that progress was easy to destroy. You had a far right wing black president people called progressive because of the color of his skin, you ‘legalized’ gay marriage without legislation, you had all other companies doing rainbow capitalism to show how open and progressive your society was, despite having the highest wealth inequality in the world – and that’s no easy feat, North Korea exists.
The fall of the US to fascism was inevitable, because both the ruling class and the majority populous has always fully supported fascism, they just hate the aesthetics.
The US was doomed from the start, it might have been better to let every state be it’s own country. We would probably see some wars with the more extreme places/states of the country.
I spend a good amount of energy trying to explain the merits of Marxism-Leninism and Leftism in general on Lemmy (and IRL, though that’s much trickier). Ultimately, you can’t make someone care. You can’t convince people of something they choose not to want to believe, either, no matter how much evidence you throw at them. Roderic Day wrote a great article titled Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of “Brainwashing” that perfectly encapsulates this process. People license themselves to believe whatever it is that they believe benefits themselves, regardless of evidence or empathy.
What you can do, however, is explain the merits of that which you believe in, and this is far more effective with people already targeted by the current system. Those closest to the edge, those radicalized by their conditions but not yet organized or versed in theory, are the perfect people to talk to. The effort required to gain an ally in that sense is far less than someone who is convinced that the system is fine, but just needs a little tweaking. Building strength through organization helps legitimize your positions and expands the circle, so to speak, by moving the “line of radicalization” further. Person A, who believes the system is fine but needs tweaks, goes from comfortably mainstream into the new line of radicalization, one step away from working to supplant the system, when those who were radicalized near them organize.
Further still, as conditions deteriorate, more people are impacted and more people are radicalized. This is both good and bad, bad in the sense that more are affected by the evils in society to a greater degree, but with the good being further chance of organization.
Just my 2 cents as someone who has spoken with many different people about Marxism.
Thank you.
No problem!
Have you ever wondered how people reacted to the original Nazis in the 1930s? Well… now you know. If can feel proud of something, it is at least I am extremely against it and the whole ‘what would you have done?’ is basically answered definitively for me.
You can stop using stupid shit like “cishet white” for starters. Statistically, most people who do not care will be cishet white. Those who care, will also mostly be cishet white. With this type of exclusionary discourse bordering on racism, no one will ever listen to you because from the start, you already sound like you have nothing important to say. There’s three types of people in the US: Slaves working 2 and 3 jobs to make ends meet, middle class being pit against the slaves by the third group, the capital. By using exclusionary discourse, assimilated from bougie fake activism, you’re promoting infighting within the classes that should be hunting the capital like animals, the French way!
Edit: your country has sacrificed countless children to never eschew the right to bear arms. Well, stop bitching online to make yourself feel good and use them.
By using exclusionary discourse, assimilated from bougie fake activism
This is a totally normal, relatable sentence
I’ve seen some leftist arguments that were denser than lead, this ain’t that. Let me rephrase for them, though:
Stop allowing social media fart sniffing contests control how you do activism. There’s mastodon, and then there’s real life.
Stop allowing social media fart sniffing contests control how you do activism
I’m onboard with this sentence. I’m sorry, but if you’re going to preface an argument on the premise of kneeling to another’s level, then actually commit to the kneel.
I used that term to show that they are privileged folks who likely won’t be directly targeted by the administration, at least at first.
Removed by mod
Ah yes, mob “justice” always works so well.
Nobody is advocating for cross burning. People need to rise against the first steps of a totalitarian government that only serves the oligarchy.
Do you want people to care or do you want to lecture people who don’t agree with you. People like to give lectures on politics, but no one listens to them. If you want people to care you have to care about them.
As someone who admittedly is guilty of “lecturing,” many do enjoy it and have DM’d me or replied thanking me for it. Different people respond better to different approaches, be they the walls of text I am frequently guilty of or shorter questions trying to get them to elaborate on their own understanding.
Actually, I don’t remember if I ever thanked you for your work; We don’t always agree on everything but your positions are thought-provoking, your delivery respectful, and your patience seemingly infinite. So, thank you. I wish there were more people like you on the left.
Thank you so much for the kind words! Genuinely. Many will slander me a troll or whatnot, but it’s words like yours and the others that say similar that keeps that patience going. I mean it.
Idk I listen to politics lectures all the time, most of which I don’t fully agree with, many I disagree with outright, listening to other takes, especially opposing ones helps me scrutinize my own reasoning and critically analyze what’s what.
It’s not really the lecturer’s fault he was lecturing, if he was right and so he should be lecturing others on truth. Much like any subject really.
This idea that all opinions are equal are how we ended up in a post-truth world.
Thought-terminating clichés of “everyone likes different things” or “people believe different things” are not just signs of a lazy intellect, they are the harbingers of our doom.
You can have beliefs that aren’t facts, in fact - you have to, but you can’t just believe whatever, you need to be able to justify it, and to do that you need to understand logic, you need to understand evidence, you need to understand the scientific method and how to reason.
There a big difference in seeking something out and someone walking up to you and talking at you.
Especially at work, where you can’t leave and should probably be focusing on the work.
That’s 100% true and a fault in OP’s attempt, but the broader question remains, if some people don’t seek it out, what do you do then?
Yeah, but what do you do when a good chunk of the population doesn’t go ‘seeking something out’, yet vote and influence the lives of those who do anyway?
Try making friends first, or at least understanding them. If you aren’t willing or capable of doing that you are just going to make things worse.
Huh? Did you respond to the wrong user?I’m not OP, I don’t go out talking at people at work.
All of my friends are already pretty much on the same page more or less, it’d be hard to be friends with someone who is against human rights or doesn’t care about such things as I’m a minority.
The question i posed in my comment was about a societal scale: what do you do to reach a disengaged electorate or an electorate that has no desire to know the truth and is not actively seeking it out whatsoever, instead believing things that re completely transparently false.
Because as it stands, the current strategy of content online or in traditional media simply ends up preaching to the choir, the lectures containing truth end up reaching only those who seek them out and as such already have an allegiance to the truth and likely at least to some extent agree with them, or see them as epistemologically well justified beliefs imperically and/or logically.
I personally rather obviously can’t make friends of like 50% of the population of a country for instance, so it’s not really a workable solution lol and I don’t think that’s what you meant.
So how do you show those people who believe transparently false things because it suits them the truth and teach them to want to seek out truth and want to believe the truth and to spot falsehoods and not be swayed by rhem, when those people have absolutely no interest in such things?
And if you can’t, what do you do then? Because these people will literally destroy a democratic society if given the chance.
Bingo. This is the fundamental disconnect I encounter on a daily basis. All anyone wants to do is lecture me about how they are right, and I am wrong if I think different than them. And if you don’t give into them they simply start insulting or shaming you, hoping they can emotionally abuse you into compliance with their beliefs. Or they just think you are evil and divide the world up into hyperbolic terms.
That isn’t how you learn or win people over to your side. All it does is promote ignorance & alienation, and that’s what we have an overabundance of in our current society.
I’m apparently old-fashioned/out of date, but I went to college to learn how to understand, assess, and communicate with other people… seems like that is no longer what people are taught or at least, no longer value it.
All anyone wants to do is lecture me about how they are right, and I am wrong if I think different than them
The only relevant question is - are you wrong?
Is your take actually valid? Based on sound imperical data? Is not fallacious? Does your reasoning stand up to scrutiny? Is it fact, or a belief? Is it a justified belief?
Ultimately you shouldn’t need to be coddled if you have any allegiance to the truth.
It’s one thing if a 3-year old gets 2+2 wrong. It’s another when it’s a 33 year old. Would you waste energy on that, or would you assume that the 33-year old doesn’t care enough to bother no matter what approach is used?
The unfortunate reality is that democracy as a vehicle for progress is a failure because not enough people have an allegiance to the truth, nor have the basic epistemological tools for determining what’s knowledge, what’s belief, what’s a hypothesis, what’s theory or what’s valid evidence or any idea of what the scientific method even is, or what an axiom is etc.
They favour their delusions (I don’t mean religion specifically) over truth.
Truth doesn’t feel good. People want to feel good.
Psychologically it’s not different than biology in the sense that people don’t want to work out and eat healthy… they want to be lazy and eat energy dense food.
Yes but like exercise, intellectual exercise feels good too. The question is why do some people not do it.
It’s less about valuing communication and more about the dopamine hit. Delivering that lecture and educating the simpletons feels really good.
Yep. Anger and egotism are proven my studies to basically be like taking a hit of cocaine. It gets people off.
Lemmy is my cocaine.
People won’t care until negative things start effecting them. Even at that point, many will still deny negative things are happening or they will put the blame somewhere else. This is why I believe things are going to have to get bad, really bad, before they can turn around. The biggest thing to go bad would be the economy. An economy so bad would be hard to deny and live with. Unfortunately, the more money you have, the longer you can “deal with” a bad economy, and still think everything is okay.
Even at that point, many will still deny negative things are happening or they will put the blame somewhere else.
My daddy is good, he would never hurt me, he only hurts people who are “illegal” 🤡
That is a particular subset. There are people who see nothing g bad happening to themselves, but do have their eyes open and see the bad things happening around them. But, again, they are ready and primed.
It is much the same as addiction counseling: until people are primed to change, there is little to do but leave your hand out stretched, not pushing any further than that.
The first thing I would ask is, have you made any attempts to really understand what motivates them and why they believe as they do? Given your flippant dismissal of their belief systems, I suspect you have just mentally bucketed them and, instead of really trying to understand them, you fall back on your per-conceived notions of what you think they believe. Without that understanding, you will never be able to “make people care”, because you are not treating them as fully formed people with their own beliefs and priorities. You expect that, if you just yell at them loudly enough, they will come around. They won’t and, if anything, they will just dig their heels in further. To them, you’re this guy:
Not everyone has the same priorities you do. What you see as “the most important thing in the world” may fall much further down the list for someone else. They may not even see it in the same framing you do. Maybe they do care about your thing, but they have their own “most important thing” and if your thing and their thing are in contention, they are going to pick their thing. This is part of the reason we have politics in the first place, once you start dealing with other people and trying to decide what and how things should be prioritized and run, you are going to run into differing beliefs and priorities. It’s why most government polices generally suck and don’t get everything done. Because those policies are the result of compromise between people with different and often competing priorities. And yes, it may be that some of those other priorities come from bad information, though more often they will come from radically different base beliefs. And not understanding what those beliefs actually are means that you will not have any sort of basis for convincing them of anything.
Changing peoples’ minds is hard. But, it starts from a place of understanding people and not dismissing their beliefs. Step back from your outrage for a moment and try to really get in their heads. You may not agree with their position, but you need to understand how they got there before you have any chance of getting them out of it. And, maybe you can’t. It may just be that they have some foundational beliefs which are completely at odds with what you want to convince them of. But, if you know and understand that, it becomes much easier to walk away from the situation and not waste time and energy on a hopeless fight. And while it feels good to yell at people, that basically never works and only serves to push them further away.
Most of the folks I talk to hear agree with me that things are going wrong, or that x,y, or z is a problem, but not enough to do anything about it. I have heard a few times that, " I want to do something, but I have to protect myself."
Most of the folks I talk to hear agree with me that things are going wrong
That’s not surprising, though be careful on what the definition of “going wrong” is. For example, Emerson College recently put out the results of some polling part of which found that 67% of voters think the US is on the wrong track. It’s highly likely that 67% includes voters from all over the political map. But, while both a hardcore Trump/MAGA voter and a Bernie Bro voter might each say that the US is on the “wrong track”, we’d probably have trouble getting those two voters to reconcile on the color of the sky, let alone what the “right track” would be. Also, be wary of coworkers who actually just want to be left alone and will “go along to get along”. They will tacitly nod and agree with just about anything, so long as you go away and let them get back to work.
or that x,y, or z is a problem, but not enough to do anything about it.
Ok, but what is the ask? What are you expecting them to do? And why do you believe that they should be the ones doing it? Again, going back to my previous comment:
Maybe they do care about your thing, but they have their own “most important thing” and if your thing and their thing are in contention, they are going to pick their thing.You may view things as so bad that everyone should be out in the streets protesting 24x7. They may not see it that way. They may put “protecting themselves” at a higher priority than protesting whatever it is you are upset about. This might be especially true if they have families to care for and that can drastically change how people prioritize things.
Once again, I’d go back to understanding their beliefs and priorities. Why won’t they do the thing you want them to do? It probably comes down to those beliefs and priorities being more important to them than whatever it is you are promoting. And again, I would note your complete dismissal of their point of view. They have given you some insight as to why they aren’t taking action:
" I want to do something, but I have to protect myself."It’s clear they prioritize their personal well-being over the perceived value of whatever you are asking them to do. Why is that? What is it that you are asking them to do that they see it as risky? If your goal is to organize something, can you work to provide them the perceived safety that would get them over that hump? Do they have other issues and their answer is just a proxy to avoid an argument? I’m afraid I’m just repeating myself here; but, you need to really understand them if you want them to change their minds.
I’m not being dismissive of their view, I understand the need for self-preservation. I think the crux of it is how do I get folks who agree things are going wrong to move from that space into one of more action? Almost everyone I’m talking to at work agrees with me, but no one is interested in organizing or preparing, and that’s what baffles me most.
I don’t know myself - I don’t have some grand plan or idea. Im a regular person (albeit one with a better historical understanding of history due to education). I’m just scared about what’s coming next, and I’m completely isolated at the end of the day. Rather than buy a bunch of guns and ammo, I would prefer to connect with folks to build mutual support, or to prepare to strike/protest/boycott (or whatever seems most effective at the time).
So they do care, just not enough? What should they be doing about it?
Lots of good answers here already. I’ll just add that Jon Stewart recently did a great segment that touches on this. Basically, he says if everything the government does is “OmG nAzIz FaScIsTz TrAiToRz!!!” then people who aren’t already paying attention will continue tuning it out. I forget at which time in the video he gets to this point, but honestly the whole 20-minute video is worth a watch.
IMO ‘comedy’ does a lot more to further political debate & informedness than it gets credit for.
I remember watching a congress inquiry or something into something like student debt or subsidies (iirc) where comedian/tv personality Hasan Minaj was included in the panel. He was a bit out of place next to the usual gov office types cracking jokes half the time (although never inappropriate) and serious the other half and i think someone even noted his presence there being strange. I forget if it was someone in the video or just a comment below the video but they pointed out that they wouldn’t have even been watching this legislation discussion if it wasnt for him and his occasional humorous answers or comments and i realised i wouldnt be watching either. Im not even american.
If comedy is the gravy you need to put on some veggies to make them more palatable for people to consume them then by all means, pour that shit on and get people interested and engaged with the issues at hand.
The every day person doesnt have to agree or change their mind, they just need to be aware and informed so when it comes the time to vote or support a choice they are given then they at least have some further knowledge beyond ‘my political team is going this way so i suppose ill do that’.
I love Jon Stewart but I think he’s a little off base with this take. Are we supposed to not call out the overtly fascist stuff the government is doing? Will that get more people to listen the next time we have to call out an overtly fascistic act or will we have to hold our tongue then, as well? How many grannies need to be eaten and impersonated by wolves before we’re allowed to move past the “ooh what sharp teeth you have” crap?
With fascism especially, if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. The people going through life like everything is fine are implicitly supporting the fascism. I’m not going to stop yelling about how a pack of wolves has taken over the government, just because some people think the word is overused.
Yeah, it’s kind of a bad take. Maybe we should teach people what the word actually means so that they can understand that the applies to everything they’re doing*
I had a conversation with my second grade teacher on Instagram the other day. I posted Matthew 25:35-40 on my story with the comment “I can’t believe so many Christians I know support a president and a government that would willingly and forcefully kick Jesus himself out of the country thousands of times.”
She replied saying that this verse doesn’t apply for the same reason that I don’t allow just anyone into my house: because there are people who shouldn’t be there. There’s just so many things wrong with her logic AND her premises that I barely knew where to start, and that’s part of the problem. Fascism works by sowing doubt in the fabric of credibility. All she really knows is that her idea of Jesus comforts her, and so finding comfort somewhere probably means she can find Jesus and righteousness there too. You can’t really teach someone to care because they probably already do care, but you have to teach them to see the things that are actually happening, to trust the real experts, and to see the connections between themselves and the people who need care.
In Luke, when Jesus says (again) to love thy neighbor literally the next question someone poses to him is “but who is my neighbor?” Jesus responds with the tale of the Good Samaritan. In this story there is a man, a traveler from a foreign land, who was robbed and beaten and left on the roadside, suffering and ignored by passing strangers (including a priest). The Good Samaritan feeds him, fixes him up, and puts him up at an inn.
There’s two laws… two. The first is to love God, the second is to “go and do likewise” as the Good Samaritan did. I’m a godless commie and I know this shit.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke+10%3A25-37&version=NIV
It’s also worth noting that at the time, Samaritans were seen as an enemy. “To the Jews, a Samaritan was more revolting than a Gentile (pagan); Samaritans were half-breeds who defiled the true religion.”
So when it was written that a good Samaritan was an example of a neighbor, it was more impactful than the phrase implies today. Part of the point was to say that even those perceived as “enemies” are ordinary people that should be treated with the same dignity and care given to one’s own tribe.
A good Christian would let people stay in their house, though. If they were robbed, they would still have treasure in heaven.
More Christians faith is paper thin at best.
I would say that the initial problem here, is that people give a single shit what a 2000+ year old, bronze-age sex manual, has to say about literally fucking anything.
Sure, but part of the problem then is that you have to convince them of that, and that’s even harder than arguing and using the Bible as at least part of your premise
If they claim to care about it then it can be used to point out their hypocrisy.
