In your discussion of the four options, I think you’ve either missed one, or have at least missed a “flavour” of option 2. What you have described as compromise if a form of “lose/lose” thinking, but there is such at thing as “win/win” thinking, if one is able to put aside the assumption of a zero-sum-game.
Thanks for reading! I wanted to emphasize "compromise" as definitionally meaning both sides don't get everything because so often in Evangelical circles "compromise" is demanding others compromise to accommodate Christians. It's a thoughtless form of supremacy and I think we need to remind people that compromising means almost definitionally that you have to give up something.
Great article. I’m often struck by how Christians end up functioning like The Borg in Star Trek TnG. Their objective seems to be the assimilation of everything into themselves.
It might be enlightening for them to read Screwtape’s Letter 8.
This is excellent, Jay. The empathy-bashing seems congruent with a push for a religio-communal corollary to political fascism, a sort of conservative evangelical blood-and-soil urge (I hesitate to paint anyone too soon w the “f-word”, just grasping for an analogy to match a pattern). Whatever it is that I’m reaching to describe has a chunky amount of overlap with the Wilson Constantinism and makes strange bedfellows with the Catholic integralists - and the common thread is power in America concerning history and political present… It seems to blatantly fall afoul of the Sermon in the Mount ethic and remains rooted in fear of losing cultural power that was gained or aspirationally claimed. [phew]
Hey thanks for reading and long time! So yeah I believe the "anti empathy" push is an attempt to get people at least more comfortable with Christian fascism. It's a mash up of assuming "objective" "truth" about social norms and political ideology. Essentially too many are saying, "What I believe about X is common sense and whoever believes differently deserves no consideration or empathy when we force them to conform to what makes us comfortable."
Another thing that strikes me about the Empathy Discourse is that it's a classic example of the "take a buzzword you believe to be popular among your opponents and claim that the buzzword is bad" tactic. It's not a logical argument; it's just a hand-wavy distraction from the inconvenience of making an actual case for what you believe. And as distraction bait it's particularly effective if you're attacking something genuinely popular: "Thing Endorsed By Everyone Is Actually Bad, New Study Says" is a headline format beloved by lifestyle magazines and tabloids for decades, because it gets attention and it sells.
I haven't read Stuckey's book but what you describe of her comments on the anti-racism protests sounds like exactly this. The 2020 anti-racism movement was, among other things, a set of factual claims about American history and institutions. From what you describe, Stuckey is saying that she disagrees with these claims and doesn't wish to investigate them because they're in conflict with her prior beliefs. That's her choice, but it has very little to do with empathy. "Empathy is bad, actually" is a red herring.
And as you point out, it's pulling attention away from the inconvenient task of making concrete recommendations for living peaceably with others.
I absolutely agree. It’s a tactic around most of those on the religious right because they for the most part don’t have arguments, they have rhetoric. They probably haven’t even considered why they believe X, they’re mostly repeating talking points said by others. Which really is the whole reason Stuckey’s book exists.
In your discussion of the four options, I think you’ve either missed one, or have at least missed a “flavour” of option 2. What you have described as compromise if a form of “lose/lose” thinking, but there is such at thing as “win/win” thinking, if one is able to put aside the assumption of a zero-sum-game.
Thanks for reading! I wanted to emphasize "compromise" as definitionally meaning both sides don't get everything because so often in Evangelical circles "compromise" is demanding others compromise to accommodate Christians. It's a thoughtless form of supremacy and I think we need to remind people that compromising means almost definitionally that you have to give up something.
Great article. I’m often struck by how Christians end up functioning like The Borg in Star Trek TnG. Their objective seems to be the assimilation of everything into themselves.
It might be enlightening for them to read Screwtape’s Letter 8.
Thanks for writing this. I've been observing Doug Wilson with concern for years.
This is excellent, Jay. The empathy-bashing seems congruent with a push for a religio-communal corollary to political fascism, a sort of conservative evangelical blood-and-soil urge (I hesitate to paint anyone too soon w the “f-word”, just grasping for an analogy to match a pattern). Whatever it is that I’m reaching to describe has a chunky amount of overlap with the Wilson Constantinism and makes strange bedfellows with the Catholic integralists - and the common thread is power in America concerning history and political present… It seems to blatantly fall afoul of the Sermon in the Mount ethic and remains rooted in fear of losing cultural power that was gained or aspirationally claimed. [phew]
Hey thanks for reading and long time! So yeah I believe the "anti empathy" push is an attempt to get people at least more comfortable with Christian fascism. It's a mash up of assuming "objective" "truth" about social norms and political ideology. Essentially too many are saying, "What I believe about X is common sense and whoever believes differently deserves no consideration or empathy when we force them to conform to what makes us comfortable."
Another thing that strikes me about the Empathy Discourse is that it's a classic example of the "take a buzzword you believe to be popular among your opponents and claim that the buzzword is bad" tactic. It's not a logical argument; it's just a hand-wavy distraction from the inconvenience of making an actual case for what you believe. And as distraction bait it's particularly effective if you're attacking something genuinely popular: "Thing Endorsed By Everyone Is Actually Bad, New Study Says" is a headline format beloved by lifestyle magazines and tabloids for decades, because it gets attention and it sells.
I haven't read Stuckey's book but what you describe of her comments on the anti-racism protests sounds like exactly this. The 2020 anti-racism movement was, among other things, a set of factual claims about American history and institutions. From what you describe, Stuckey is saying that she disagrees with these claims and doesn't wish to investigate them because they're in conflict with her prior beliefs. That's her choice, but it has very little to do with empathy. "Empathy is bad, actually" is a red herring.
And as you point out, it's pulling attention away from the inconvenient task of making concrete recommendations for living peaceably with others.
I absolutely agree. It’s a tactic around most of those on the religious right because they for the most part don’t have arguments, they have rhetoric. They probably haven’t even considered why they believe X, they’re mostly repeating talking points said by others. Which really is the whole reason Stuckey’s book exists.