reminder that every time people complain about wokeness they're literally just complaining about being conscious about systemic racism, because that's what woke means.
Just replace "woke" with "being a decent person" and it becomes pretty clear what these people want.
"Woke" started out as a simple acknowledgment that a person is conscious of the systemic oppression of various groups. Now the right wing has got its claws into the term it's been effectively neutered. Now all it means is, "stuff that right wingers don't like"
It's like "defund the police" which quickly became "abolish all policing".
It's a useful strategy for them and it works to prevent honest discussion on how to solve societal problems by preventing people from having a shared understanding of the language needed for such discussion.
Ugh, "defund the police" is a terrible phrase if you actually want the movement to succeed. I wish they would have gone with something along the lines of "police reform". Immediately every conservative glommed onto "now they want to abolish all police!"
We do need a massive overhaul to police. Unfortunately that means better marketing of the idea of it's going to happen.
I still have a hard time how “woke” is bad. Woke means your not asleep, it means you are not guided by others. How can people turn this into a bad thing. I’m proud to be woke.
Same happened to the terms "political correctness" and "social justice". The meaning gets twisted into something grotesque by think tanks and then it's shipped out to talking heads so Billy-Bob can regurgitate it at the water cooler.
I honestly can't believe that using this word unironically has caught on. Everything I think is just a stupid joke on the internet turns out to be the internet reflecting just how idiotic humanity really is.
Either that, or just an unpleasant shock at just how 'mask-off' some people have become.
Atheism is refusal of forced ideas upon someone. Which means one has to use critical thinking to determine their path in life. The problem is that it’s much harder to control the masses if that population thinks for themselves.
Hey! It's "being a decent person in a way not sanctioned by their local culture". If you're decent to the correct people with enough pandering imagery that's fine.
Lots of 'woke' people are shitty people. I've had way too many experiences in the past few years with 'woke' people screaming at me about how I need to read more women authors or I'm a shitty awful human being. Or other equally absurd things, like I'm a bigot if I don't ask you what your pronoun is. If you have a pronoun preference, how about you tell me? Just like you tell someone how to pronounce your name if it's non-standard.
I know lots of progressive people, and I am progressive. But I would never say I am 'woke'. People who self-identify 'woke' tend to be mentally ill crazy people in my encounters, and use their politics as an excuse for abusive and hostile behavior just the way right-wing nazi nutbags do.
Hell I even had a transwoman assault me verbally one day while I was just reading a book in a cafe. Comes up to me and demands that I give her my table because I'm a white cis guy and I should give up my 'privileged' to her. I told her to f off. My small business has been harassed by 'woke' activists who demand we give them money or they will say we are anti-black/lgbt+, etc. That's not woke, that's blackmail.
Most 'woke' people I meet are basically 20 sometime trust-fund types who need a cause to give her their miserable lives purpose, because god knows they can't get their shit together and do something positive with their lives. If they did maybe they'd stop being such awful abusive people who threaten and harass others.
Hell I even had a transwoman assault me verbally one day while I was just reading a book in a cafe. Comes up to me and demands that I give her my table because I’m a white cis guy and I should give up my ‘privileged’ to her.
Hell I even had a transwoman assault me verbally one day while I was just reading a book in a cafe. Comes up to me and demands that I give her my table because I'm a white cis guy and I should give up my 'privileged' to her. I told her to f off. My small business has been harassed by 'woke' activists who demand we give them money or they will say we are anti-black/lgbt+, etc. That's not woke, that's blackmail.
That was the most infuriating thing about this whole post to me. Elon's braindead take is on brand and expected at this point, but that chart (or worse, the reaserch behind it) is the true crime here.
If this graph isn't just made up bs in the first place, one thought I recall from every major college campus I've been to is random religious preachers camped out every day telling everyone they're evil, subhuman, and going to hell. Guessing the atheists find that a little more annoying and worthy of shouting back at than some of the religiously inclined.
Nazi: "white power!"
Normal people: "hey, stfu!"
Cristian Conservatives: "hey I don't agree with it but let's hear him out. Some people might agree, his ideas deserve to be discussed and given a platform"
Study is done by "TheFire.org," which is described as a competitor to the ACLU.
I know... why do we need a competitor to the ACLU?
Well, per Wikipedia: "FIRE has been described as a competitor of the ACLU. In 2021, the organization had an annual revenue of $16.1 million. FIRE has received major funding from groups which primarily support conservative and libertarian causes, including the Bradley Foundation, Sarah Scaife Foundation, and the Charles Koch Institute."
This year’s survey includes 55,102 student respondents from 254 colleges and universities.[1] Students who were enrolled in four-year degree programs were surveyed via the College Pulse mobile app and web portal from January 13 to June 30, 2023
Kinda like being able to buy a 2024 Kiacarnival since July.
Let's go a step further and analyze exactly what this graph is saying:
There's only about a 20% distribution difference in the "never" sections between Christians and atheists. So on average, 4/5 atheists would answer the exact same as Christians. All this graph says is that Christians are barely more tolerant than people who identify as atheist. Barely is the key word. If anything, this graph proves that tolerance levels don't fluctuate that much for the individual between differing religions.
But Bible thumpers need any win they can get, so they don't read the data for what it is, they just see one bar longer than the other and declare victory.
When the hate preachers show up on campus with a bullhorn and try to tell everyone that they deserve to burn in hell, they don't want the reat of the world to tell them to STFU.
I see. If someone is yelling obscenities at you then its probably ok to yell at them too although I wouldn't bother personally. I don't think this poll can mean anything though as I imagine everyone has different understandings of what a "speaker" is and is doing.
These open questions are always kinda crap to draw conclusions from because we don't know how the question was interpreted by the people answering. In this case we also don't know the sample size of the groups. Could also be a multitude of other variables at play like location because there are few places where you can find all these religions while getting a good sample size and controlling for other variables like income, education, age etc.
Bro these people stand in common areas shouting about how everyone is going to hell. They dont have a case and dont deserve any respect. If anything they deserve some counseling from a medical professional.
I think the biggest issue is religious people that can only view things through the lense of their own perspective equate any belief system with religion. And since we, as humans, categorize everything, everyone has a "belief system," even if you believe in absolutely nothing (nihilism).
So "atheism" is considered a religion, believing in the scientific method is a religion, and believing in the inherent and equal rights of people is a religion.
Thats just what people say when people want to categorize some idea as a religion. "wokeness" or even atheism itself is called a "religion" because it makes the religious feel better about believing in their own beliefs for which there is no basis.
Generally the uneducated or low-iq who simply can't be educated. They don't understand science so to them it might as well be another religion. In that case why not pick the religion that gives them a nice afterlife? Something they can fall back on and blame when they make poor decision after poor decision.
On the most fundamental level: For everyone. That's because every world-view bogs down to a logical system and all logical systems are grounded in circular reasoning, paradox, or assumptions not provable in that system.
People believe in all kinds of things, e.g. that the judge who's sentencing you to prison is more than a human in fancy clothes. Or that the social reality that gives them that power doesn't exist. Both stances are, ultimately, insane, and so are we all.
EDIT: ITT: Cargo cultists not understanding what science is (a process) and isn't (proof of anything).
all logical systems are grounded in circular reasoning, paradox, or assumptions not provable in that system.
That's a hell of an assertion you have there. We have mathematical papers that prove 1+1=2. What logical system are you saying is grounded in circular reasoning, paradox, or assumptions? Because modern peer reviewed science sure isn't.
The questioning is stupid. There is no nuance on the categorisation of frequency because "always" and "sometimes" are put together. They do not mean the same thing! "Always" means "all the time", "sometimes" means "on occasions". I am an advocate for free speech as much as the next person, but there is limit to that right because history has shown what can happen if free speech is absolute-- which led us the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide. Therefore, "sometimes" you COULD shout down someone depending on the content being spouted. So, on a case by case basis, "on occasions" you could shout down someone.
As another poster pointed out, the company who made the survey is conducted by conservative group, FIRE, which is Koch-funded so obviously there is clear bias and dishonesty in the framing of the survey.
You freedome ends where someone elses starts, otherwhise noone except you will be free, I don't get why Americans often have such a hard time with that!
The US never, in its history, had a collective trauma of unstifled free speech that led to any mass hate speech which then led to genocide. That's why many Americans are absolutists. But considering the Jan 6 capitol attack two years ago, being instigated by the words of Donald Trump, I think sooner or later a worse incident will come eventually. And the country will come reckoning with their absolutist approach to free speech.
Hatred had been allowed to flourish in the run up to both genocides and eventual stifling of free speech, precisely because the undemocratic forces took advantage of freedom of speech to gain power themselves and then stifle any dissent.
Wait what's the difference between Atheist, No response, and Nothing?
Also why is there a generic Christian but then also Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox? But then they just Muslim and not it's different denominations? Why even have different denominations when you have the generic catch all and the Other category?
Also unfair in the questioning. From my own experience im going to assume the person speaking at the campus is someone yelling how all are damned and calling women whores. Sadly, very few people other than atheists speak up.
Atheism are people who are activly against religion. Nothing are Irreligious people I assume. No Response are those who's religious identity are unknown. Could be any of the others or none of them.
Generally: atheists are those that say there are no gods and no goddesses. Agnostics tend to be more on the fence about it, making no claim either way.
But, as a rule, neither requires that someone is "against religion".
Am atheist. Am not actively against religion. If it makes your life better and is also benefiting others (or at least its not a negative), have at it. I do not give a shit.
Atheist is literally "not theist" which would include nothing, none, agnostic (the belief that it's impossible to determine the existence or absence of, in this context, God). It could even be argued that people who believe in God but do not participate in theistic practices (eg lapsed Catholics) are atheists. It does not require or even imply some position against religion.
I think calling Atheism a religion does degrade its value. It brings atheism into the same category as religion, it promotes the idea that atheists need just as much faith as religious people, it basically turns science into a religion.
Just to be clear, I define Atheism as "without belief in a God", that would include anyone saying they are agnostic.
I do know many Christians who are all about love and tolerance, the problem is, they aren't the ones going onto Fox News to declare they'll be shouting how much "Jesus loves you, but only if you're straight!" at your local university...
They're the ones quietly living their lives according to Jesus' teachings..
A few of these friends have taken to calling the kind of Christians the Alt-Right claims to be 'Xtians", for they have taken the "Christ" out of "Christians"
Or, another way of looking at it is, they're embrace of deceit and delusion means they periodically have to fabricate new imaginary dragons to slay. The problem with turning victimhood and grievance into a cult is that you need persecution for it to work. Hence, fabricating opposition. Wokeness is just a way for the elder elite to heap hate on the youth that will inevitably replace them. Constantly reminding everyone that you are a patriotic Christian is just a means to try to seize the higher ground for cultural warfare.
Wokeness is the new "politically correct" - just pure unadulterated nonsense to rile up the conspiracy theorists and Republicans (but I repeat myself). And they use it much like people were using "thanks Obama". If one of the cult stubs their toe, they can blame it on "wokeness" and also probably yell "thanks Obama!" now probably also followed up by "Let's Go Brandon!".
Personally, I didn't stop believing because of the intolerances. I stopped believing because it was an obvious ancient attempt to control people that worked to various degrees but still has the dumb shit people thought was plausible back when they didn't understand much and didn't think there was any way to disprove their claims.
I think that is most people, I just asked why is everyone automatically accepting this as true. But there are two groups of religious people that I understand moreso: people who feel they witnessed or directly saw a miracle and people who like the experience of a religious group and being around the people in it.
I love that he did a 100% 180 on everything he "believed in", from being pro science, atheist, and left leaning to anti science, christian, and conservative troll and none of his followers batted an eye. He does what he thinks is popular, what will keep him talked about. Nuts to that.
Also, what is the relation of "a speaker" to religion?
If somebody comes in to speak and starts talking about how we need to gas more jews, stop women from voting, and put the blacks back out in the cotton fields then fuck yeah I'm gonna support cutting them off and sending them packing.
The topic here is censoriousness. The relationship between a speaker and religion here is via censoriousness, and the reason for that is listed in the first sentence.
And? You could take the same data and say- "religious persons are less likely to speak out againstmessaging that potentially promotes harm" (likely also dependent on the religious affiliation of the messenger)
The preceding message that this makes atheists the more "intolerant" group is a pretty massive reach, consider that the messaging they may be against could in itself be one of intolerance as per my example.
To be fair this is fake af, agnostics might question the person, but shouting out of stage without making questions first seems very odd for that specific category.
Cuz when you got to the point in life where you know you don't really know shit nothing you kinda are more tolerant to new ideas and new concepts I would guess
If you took an informed look on history, you'd realize that religious killings happen far more often and far more wide reaching than ones motivated by atheism.
The word woke lost all meaning due to far-right wingers constantly using it as a catch-all term for everything they don't like.
Also, I love how they made it so the top 3 bad guys are atheists, agnostics (which are pretty much the same thing) and the jewish. They're not even trying to be covert with propaganda.
I mean they both don't have a definitive belief there is a god, one is just more certain than the other. But for classification purposes I would say they are different.
Because it's not enough to argue with Muslims and atheists, they need to be more right than other people who believe in the same God in different ways.
We have a very large christian population, and they all don't behave in a monolithic manner. For surveys it makes sense to ask which denomination or type of christian they are. Some will response Catholic, Baptist, Protestant. Some will respond christian, sometimes non-denominational christian. It improves the survey results. For example, you might find differences between Catholics and Baptists that wouldn't show up if you grouped them all together under a christian category.
Oh American christianity is something different as a whole.
I'll give my best summary in as few words as I can during my lunch.
Christianity is an Abrahamic faith with its roots in catholicism. When Martin Luther, a catholic from Germany, wrote a large 95 point thesis detailing his problems with catholicism and how the church had been warped from its intention, this lead to whay most modern Americans would call Lutheranism.
This reformation of the church that started with Martin Luther is known as the Protestant Reformation, protestants being anyone who believed in Christ but not in the orthodox or catholic belief set and rites.
The separation of that faith and the pursuit to practice it openly (sometimes even if it was MORE restrictive than the existing systems) led to the exodus of religious groups to America. This is where some Americans get the idea that "america was founded on Christianity and religious freedom", as these were protestants who were escaping religious persecution for rejecting mainline catholicism.
Some time down the line, I don't know the history of this part, the general term for anyone believing in christ but not catholicism (some going as far as saying lutheranism is catholic-lite as they still practiced communion and most protestants don't recognize communion or any of the 'rites' as those are things they see as placed on top of religion by man and not by God) was just left at Christians.
For all intents and purposes, in the US, Christian mostly means Protestant, methodist, Lutheran, Baptist, Southern Baptist (they're separate, I was raised Southern Baptist, they get pissy about being lumped in), calvinist, and non-denominational (people who don't claim a 'branch' but worship christ in a way not easily or intentionally not tied to a singular rhetoric.
Please ask more questions and I'll try my best. Having been born to a Southern Baptist family, it's a topic I love to discuss and learn more on. I'm not religious though, so hopefully none of my stuff comes off disrespectful, just happens to be a family trade I can't quite put down.
It's a horrible graph. Likely they meant 'evangelical protestant' to differentiate that group from protestants like Lutherans Methodists Anglicans etc.
Don't forget adventist, pentecostalism, lutheranism, etc. There's dozens of christians religions in the USA that may hate each others. This doesn’t make much sense.
Shit in my comment I forgot all about Adventists and pentecostal. Oh jeez, let's hope the singular group that makes it to heaven takes mercy on my failure to include them.
Because they all seem to think their beliefs are the true beliefs of what the Bible teaches. They will always be at war with one another.
The “teachings” of the Bible are all based on how one person interprets it compared to another, the individual churches all believe the same version as they were taught by their religious leaders, who in turn believe their ultimate religious leader, for example the Catholic Church (all variations) follow the pope and his interpretation.
Well, it seems the same ding-a-lings claiming agnosticism and atheism are religions are also prone to claiming science is a "religion", following evidence is a "religion", and so on...
By lumping them all into the same category, it gives credibility to "religion".
When you have a panel where "A priest, a rabbi, and a mullah discus spirituality", it's a level playing field, everyone is just there to compare notes on their LARPing rules.
If an atheist or a scientist join the panel, you now have an emperors new clothes situation, "Yeah, I don't have all the answers, but more importantly, neither do they, and I'm not claiming to. Here are the facts and evidence as it is currently understood, and what that might mean".
When you call atheism or science or woke a religion, they are trying to trap you by saying "ha! Your belief is just as meaningless as I mine is! We're all equal and subjective rules apply".
I try to refer to things as simply dogmatic. Some people have replaced religion with other things, but that doesn't make them a religion. People beg for authority.
New Atheism is insanely dogmatic, but it's not the same as Atheism, and has been criticized by Atheists who classify "New Atheism" as being akin to a hate-group
and Scientism is a school of philosophy, albeit one that's mocked relentlessly (Basically, the philosophy that everything that is real can be measured, and if it can't be measured it isn't real)
But... that's as close as I'd get to describing Science or Atheism as religions....
I'd like to understand what the definition of what "New Atheism" is. I know there have been a few tempest in a teapots over certain individuals [1] and their behavior; nothing about atheism - new or otherwise - seems to require them to behave like some individuals have, as far as I know. I also have no idea how this set of (non) beliefs would make them a hate group.
[1] thunderf00t, for example. I also know plenty of people that go crazy over the mere mention of, say, Sam Harris, or Richard Dawkins, or Christopher Hitchens. Not sure if those guys are who we are talking about here.
This also ignores that shouting at someone in no way infringes on their ability to speak. It's just something they don't like to happen. Ironically, much like women going to abortion clinics and getting shouted down and harassed, simply based on their religious belief that abortion is wrong. But whew, let's not apply logic to their beliefs...
Always/sometimes is one answer? Isn't that incredibly awful survey taking practice? Also, is this about people's right to criticize public speakers? Because it seems like the pro free speech position is to let people criticize public speakers
This comment needs more attention. Sometimes I wash Lemmy had awards like Reddit to make important things visible.
Never would be allowing someone to scream racial slurs and ignoring it. Rarely and sometimes should be replaced with "it depends". Always probably means the same thing as sometimes since you aren't going to shout down a good speaker that you agree with. The whole survey doesn't make sense when you stop to think about it.
I thought the point of Atheism was to escape the alleged intolerant nature of religion.
No. Atheism has no point. It's merely the default, catch-all, left-over position. Anyone who isn't convinced any religion's gods are real, becomes an atheist automatically, simply for a lack of any other option.
Religious people really don't understand atheism or agnosticism. It's not like we just have a coming out ceremony where we take a bible and burn it, it's just "You know, I don't know if I believe that god is real...". They make it out to be that we all gather in groups every sunday to talk about it... but we just sleep in. We don't usually even label ourselves because the label is itself irrelevant. We don't have a religion, that's it. You all believe in something, that's great, we don't. That's literally all there is to it.
I know you're trolling and indeed fuck the rest, but..buddhist monks? Pretty hard to have beef with. No pun intended.
I guess you could make the case that encouraging indifference towards suffering breeds a whole different class of sociopathy, but even then, at least they're the least destructive they can possibly be by just never touching anything.
Texas' articles of secession name slavery as a main cause twelve times. Georgia's calls abolitionism "heresy" and Mississippi, bless them, referred to it with "a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization," before going even further with such quotes as
[The US government] refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.
It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.
Which I am only leaving here because somebody wrote that, meant it, and sent it off, and it is insane to read.
Fortunately for Mississippi, their constituents can't.
He’s not wrong in the sense that everyone has their own worldview, and humans need a worldview to process the immense amount of information we are exposed to on a daily basis. Some people incorporate organized religion into their worldview, while others do not.
Agreed. Where he is wrong is in equating “having a world-view” with “having a religion”. The two are not the same and it’s foolish in the extreme to suggest that they are.
The dictionary lists this for use #3 for religion:
”a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith”
In this sense of the word, many people, including atheists, do have a religion deeply rooted in their worldview.
A concrete example is people who fervently believe that FOSS is the only good way to make software, and that proprietary software is evil. Many of those people are unwilling to even consider the merits of the latter. In this sense, those beliefs very much qualify as “religious” in this sense of the word.
I mean if it was literally Hitler come back to life, sure.
They shouldn't have grouped "always" and "sometimes".
It means that people who are hard line anti religion and would yell at someone if they dared to express the tiniest support for a religion to people who would protest or yell at someone who is widely accepted as bad.
I originally perceived this as if the religion of the speaker was x, results were how likely they'd be essentially boo'd. I don't get much shit for being an atheist lately, but depending on the peer group it can get a little..dicey.
Some replace various religions with a worship of money. Usually they are better at managing it.
How much has the 'X' formerly known as Twitter lost, btw?
I think most would cite something like the paradox of intolerance - you need a bit of intolerance of intolerance to sustain any tolerance.
I bet the Christian stat would have been higher in the past too, when they were on the front foot and the controversial speaker was less likely to be someone they agreed with.
If "woke" hadn't become a political buzzword, would Elon have said what that refrain used to be? As in, would he also have said that atheists just replaced god with the worship of science? Absolute stupidity and smooth brainery regardless
Sorry I'm stupid or tired or something. I misread the graph to mean that those people should be shout down but they are the people who were asked which makes a lot more sense
FIRE files lawsuits against colleges and universities that it perceives as curtailing First Amendment rights of students and professors. FIRE has been described as a competitor of the ACLU. In 2021, the organization had an annual revenue of $16.1 million. ...
FIRE has received major funding from groups which primarily support conservative and libertarian causes, including the Bradley Foundation, Sarah Scaife Foundation, and the Charles Koch Institute. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Individual_Rights_and_Expression
I mean, it's been proven that humans have a psychological need for religion, but....
Wokeness? A religion?
Eh at worst you have companies overcompensating to avoid seeming racist or sexist... and you have tankies taking it too far and claiming everything is imperialist bullshit, but that's hardly a new phenomenon... Hippies of yesteryear did similar.
But again, worst case scenarios.
There's nothing wrong with saying "Maybe you shouldn't speak here, or, anywhere really?" if a guy is literally going to Colleges to give seminars on how "Hitler did nothing wrong, and maybe transpeople, and not the constantly crashing economy and the blatant failure of trickle down... are to blame for all of your problems."
I remember when being "Woke" had positive connotations, but the Right Wing ruins everything.
It's why you see a shrinking number of people going to church, yet seemingly paradoxical more cases of atheists going to church "For the sense of community"
Evolutionary speaking, If there really isn't a god, that's terrible news for human race. In fact the only thing keeping me believing that there might be is being fully Lucid of the horror of a Godless universe.
Not really now the connotation is more connected to the kind of out of touch corporation that thinks progress is just calling yourself "they/them" and trying to appeal to minorities and lgbt persons in ways more offense than just using slurs. (Remember Q Force?)
Or the kind of weekend warrior who thinks cancelling people over Twitter because every other word is a dog whistle. When if they really wanted to be part of the solution and not the problem they'd have abandoned twitter in favor of Mastodon by now.
Btw Hexbear is FULL of the latter.. had a gang cherry picking my posts to claim I was a pedo and a Nazi by warping a few out of context and connecting unrelated posts.... so unpleasant
Basically if you're woke now it means you're an out of touch white guy getting offended on behalf of minorities who weren't even slightly offended to begin with.
It used to mean that you were aware that society's problems are caused by the blatant greed of the rich, not the perceived laziness of the poor.
These things happen. They call it the euphemism treadmill, sometimes the meanings of words shift and what was a compliment becomes an insult and vice versa
Kind of like how "Person of Color" and "Queer" used to be slurs, the R word used to be a medical term, and the three letter F word used to be a schoolyard insult instead of "The N Word for gays"
"Atheism" has been appropriated by people with a grudge against religion who wants to destroy it at all costs, and convert all practitionerd of religion to atheism. So, armchair crusaders.
The fact that atheism is another belief system is true (none of us is out there proving shit because it can't be proved, both ways), but calling it wokeness and a religion makes you look like the dumbass you are, Elon.
Atheism just means that you have yet to find a reason to believe in God or some higher power. It is not a belief system, it is a lack of reason to believe in any belief system.
Atheism is the denial of god's existence, a-theism, and since you have no way to prove that there's no god (the same way there's no way of proving that there is), you believe that your version of the story is the correct one.
it is a lack of reason to believe in any belief system.
You believe all the things you think are true but can't prove.
I don't really want this to devolve into an argument, since I get that this way of thinking holds no practical purpouse, so if you think that it's too philosophical, that's okay.