You must log in or # to comment.
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 could be wrong but “defund the police” was just a discussion point for activists talking amongst themselves. In that context it makes sense. What happened was that this inelegant phrase was seized as a weapon by the right and then every Dem politician had to answer if they supported the idea of abolishing the police.
I’d imagine that many people would be receptive to the idea of taking some money out of police budgets so social workers and people trained in deescalation can be hired. For example cops aren’t a good fit when dealing with people facing mental health crises because they mostly turn to use of force and make a bad situation worse.
If you twist this into, “are you in favor of abolishing all police?” then most people are going to say, “hell no, what a stupid idea, you moron”.
Now any discussion about the rotten state of policing in the US had been effectively hobbled. Discussion is shut down. The right wing wins.
What happened was that this inelegant phrase was seized as a weapon by the right
I vividly remember tons of memes and posts on reddit, done in leftist grups by leftist people stating the sentence “defund the police”. The right did manipulate the meaning, but saying that they were the sole perpetrators of the popularity of the phrase is silly.
How many in number, would you say? 100? 200?
In number? idk, about 1-3 a day that was on the top of r/all with tons of comments, iirc it was when the Floyd protest were happening, alongside the BLM movement (not the organization). I don’t remember it too well, it’s been 3 years already, but I do remember that it was a whole thing with posts, comments, memes and so on.
That makes more sense.
I know the real idea behind it. I just never liked it being summarized as defund. It’s more like restructure. Personally, I would be much more aggressive with an overall. It’s rotten top to bottom.
this inelegant phrase was seized as a weapon by the right
Were “the right” the ones at protests holding up hundreds of signs that said “defund the police”?
Unfortunately police reform doesn’t necessarily imply taking police funds and diverting them to nonviolent responders instead. It’s hard to make that into a catchy phrase that can’t be misinterpreted. I could see cities implementing some rubber-stamp oversight board filled with ex-cops and saying, “see, we reformed the police! They have oversight now.”
just about every police reform has failed to provide any independent oversight, failed to address the core problems, and generally just poured more money into the already bloated and militarized police force.
I like “unburden the police”. Take away things that aren’t actual policing. Cops don’t need to be out there doing animal control for example.
For better or worse, that aspect is never going away. Places with less funds, like rural counties and cities, rely on their police to do everything that gets called in to 911 and isn’t fire/ems/construction (which, thankfully, they have dedicated teams/people for).
I see that, but it doesn’t mean that bigger cities couldn’t have different departments handle it
Ugh, “defund the police” is a terrible phrase if you actually want the movement to succeed.
I feel like these are probably astroturfed movements. Because you can say the same thing about the “antiwork” movement, whose proponents claim to actually want to work.
The designation of your movement is kind of important.
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.
Woke means that if you’re in a privileged position in a society, more equality is a threat to your status and should be suppressed.
That’s the Bs meaning they’re giving. It’s like the way they change the definition of patriotism to match nationalism.
This is 100% correct. The term has no definition in their world, it is just another form of their “boogeyman” control methods to keep the stupid and scared engaged. It only works on these fearful idiots because of this fact.
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.
Critical Race Theory, school libraries full of porn, caravans of migrants heading to the southern border, activist judges legislating from the bench, and so on.
Except activist judges legislating from the bench is real, and they seem to be the worst possible humans doing so. “Seem” being key.
You see, when justices make ruling based on personal rights of people conservatives hate then they are activists.
When they allow conservatives to stomp all over the rights of minorities then they are just using ‘common sense’ or something.
You’re not wrong and that’s sad.
“It’s like “defund the police” which quickly became “abolish all policing”.”
It’s actually the other way around. The radical demand got watered down but it didn’t slow the fearmongeringbl even a little bit
Maybe? I don’t have a definite timeline and there were lots of groups talking to each other.
acknowledgment that a person is conscious of the systemic oppression of various groups.
“stuff that right wingers don’t like”
theyre_the_same_picture.jpg
But yes. The right has polluted yet another word and tried to turn it into a pejorative.
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.
I’m going with the “mask off” probability.
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.
Kinda like being against anti-fascists… aka fascists.
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.
I’m betting this never happened.
The other day a TrAnSGenDEr WoKe person came into my yard and kicked my dog. And I WOULD know. I’m a dog.
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’ll take “Things that never happened” for 600, Alex
Most of those people are the types to virtue signal because they know they benefit from an unjust system but won’t work to dismantle it.
I’ve never known someone to identify as “woke”.
Yea I don’t believe any of this. =)
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 transwoman? Albertina Einstein.
You do sound like a shitty awful human being if I’m to be honest.
That’s not woke, that’s blackmail.
That’s worse. That sort of shit turns ignorant and gullible people anti-LGBT and makes their already difficult lives even harder.
who need a cause to give her their miserable lives purpose
Tell them to fight global warming. It is the problem that makes all other problems all but irrelevant in comparison.
Except woke people aren’t decent. Some woke people have good intentions, sure, but they aren’t decent. Being woke means being evil.
this is actually incoherent
I have mixed feelings about Lemmy still being so small that I can recognize usernames and think, “oh, there’s that nut job again”
One of these days, I’ll pay attention to usernames. It didn’t happen on Reddit for over a decade, but you never know.
Well, do explain then.
Haha oh yeah I’ve seen your around. Fuck off.
Lumping ‘always’ with ‘sometimes’ is cooking your results to meet your objective.
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.
I like how they count “Nothing”, “No response”, and “Other” as being separate religions so that the chart looks nore intimidating.
It’s by a right-wing / libertarian think tank. Spinning whatever bs they want.
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”
Alternatively:
Reasoned person: “We should help poor people”
Christian Conservatives: “STFU you woke liberal piece of shit, I hope you die! Go suck Biden’s dick, loser”
Atheists vs no response/nothing crowd are more quick to point out that you should not only have freedom of religion but also freedom from religion. I think that makes the separation between the two on this graph.
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.”
Oh Charles Koch, you scoundrel.
They have unmatched methods. Is there any other place on the internet with 2024 college free speech rankings?
Fwiw, they do explain:
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.
Ahh yes a graph without citation of research, lovely
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.
I made a comment below, this is from a conservative research group funded by the remaining Koch brother, among other conservatives.
There seems to be an innate need for religion.
For whom? Because I sure as shit don’t have any need to believe in fairy tales.
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.
So much this.
My little brother is religious AF and I’m an atheist, and that whole tidbit was one of the more frustrating things to argue against.
He’d INSIST that if I didn’t have faith in God, I must have faith in something, because it’s human nature to believe.
It’s like, naw bro, maybe that’s just YOUR nature, but it’s like he just couldn’t think outside that type of thing.
it’s human nature to believe
This is why children never ask questions like “why”. Not ever, not even a little bit. They just believe they understand and never even inquire.
I make my own up. There’s a giant space crab coming to devour us all WORSHIP THEM
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.
For whom?
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.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
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.
We have mathematical papers that prove 1+1=2
They postulate systems in which that is entailed. Generally, as we’re speaking about maths, with assumptions (axioms) not provable in that system, mathematicians don’t like basing things on circular or paradox stuff but ultimately that’s a matter of taste, not what the system can express.
What logical system are you saying is grounded in circular reasoning, paradox, or assumptions?
All. Show me a proof of implication without using either, I’m waiting.
Because modern peer reviewed science sure isn’t.
It is based on the scientific method which can be understood as an algorithm which via Curry-Howard and Church is a logic which, well, see above. The universe might just as well be a Holtzmann brain and in exactly 15 seconds after you read this it’s going to switch to a different dream, and you’ll never know.
Now you may not like that we ultimately have nothing to stand on but that’s your problem, not that of the universe. Or science. Don’t shoot the messenger.
Is science a process or a world-view? That fact you apparently can’t tell the difference is the problem here.
It’s a process. Belief in it from a practical purpose is a world-view and also very sensible as that process being useful matches experience; it is a healthy adaptation of oneself to the surrounding circumstances. Belief in it from a “science knows truth and is the only source of truth” is, first of all, unscientific, secondly, a cargo cult. Science doesn’t tell you shit about whether you should stick your dick in crazy and if it did it wouldn’t tell you the same as your genes which is what you’re going to listen to anyway, and find some rationalisation to dismiss that particular piece of science. And that’s fine. We’re all human.
What does it mean to “Shout down a speaker”? What are they speaking about and what is the purpose of shouting at them?
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.
I don’t think this poll can mean anything
Given the obvious motivation of the person who posted it, I’d want to see some independent source before attributing any importance to it.
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.
And does it apply only to verbal, podium speech, or also to written books and speech by people in [drag] costume.
They go to the lecture and just scream so that that person can’t present. They don’t allow the person to make their case or offer them any respect.
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.
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.
never led to genocide?? how about indigenous people?
I’m not trying to dismiss or diminish the oppression that happened to Native Americans, blacks and other minorities in the US, but abuse of free speech hasn’t really been a factor into it-- not that I could think of. There have still been people who voiced out against the oppression and those people weren’t silenced or killed for doing so (aside from those who suffered from mob justice, which is different to government-sanctioned killings like the Holocaust).
I think the issue comes down to collective trauma and lack of free speech by the oppressed.
The massacre of the native peoples, horrors of slavery and resulting civil war, Jim Crow era in the south, the war on drugs, and the war on terror are all genocides in their own right, but the voices of the oppressed have been silenced in history books and mass media under the guise of ‘keeping the peace’ or promoting unity, while the people who facilitate(d) these things continue(d) to play a role in shaping national discourse.
(Say nothing of ‘lesser’ national traumas, such as prohibition, the race riots of the 50’s and 60’s, the intentional lack of healthcare for the gay community during the height of the AIDS epidemic, and the ongoing class war that’s being executed through education access and cuts to social programs.)The U.S. has never looked inward, or if it has, it has largely chosen to ignore the lessons that could be learned.
I think that even if there were a nationally traumatizing event of the sort that transformed Germany, the U.S. would gleefully skip past it to repeat the same mistakes.
I believe the issue is not lack of opportunity to learn, but a resistance to learning and a refusal to, as it were, e pluribus unum.
Hear hear!
No one has a freedom from someone saying something mean about them
The Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide didn’t happen because of absolute free speech. Quite on the contrary: freedom of speech was heavily suppressed
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.
The Rwandan genocide in relation to media and free speech is slightly different. It is the government affiliated radio station that encouraged to hate the Tutsis by constantly calling them cockroaches. Interestingly, there was a debate in the US government at the time to block radio signals from the radio station, but decided not to for “commitment to freedom of speech”.
The paradox of tolerance: The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually ceased or destroyed by the intolerant.
Hatred didn’t flourish because of freedom of speech, hatred flourished because of normalized violence and censorship of opposition. Even the German communist party attacked Jews for some time.
Good point.
Yeah this is an example of “lying with graphs 101”.
The data probably didn’t fit the narrative when they separate “always” and “sometimes”
Basically, “every opinion I don’t like is a religion.”
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!”.
even if it is a religion. So what? does that degrades it’s value? what happened to them preaching about christian’s tollerence?
if it was ever there.
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.
How you define it is irrelevant. How is it defined in society? We can only trust to established dictionaries to track the usage and meaning of words.
The OED defines ‘atheist’ as ‘a person who does not believe that God or gods exist’.
At least among most Atheists it’s defined as lack of belief. It’s also arguably the most correct definition based on the parts of the word itself.
Theist is usually defined as “with belief”, so it makes sense that A-theist means without belief. Adding that A to another word usually means without, like asymptomatic (without symptoms) or amoral (without morals).
The same thing can be said with Agnostic, Gnostic is with knowledge, A-gnostic is without knowledge.
Agnostic/Gnostic answers the question of “do you have knowledge that a God exists”. Atheist/Theist answers the question of “do you have belief that a God exists”.
That’s a great explanation of the terms. Thanks for that.
Given this, can you think of a word that would describe those who are hostile to the concept of a deity? Antitheist, perhaps?
No problem, It’s interesting how differently the terms are used within and outside of the atheist community. I think it’s also important to realize that most Atheists are going to have more certainty when it comes to a specific God not existing, compared to the general concept of a God. It’s much more likely that some kind of God exists than the specific one of a given religion exists. Like I would personally put the general idea of a God existing at maybe 50% (like a God who created the universe and let nature take its course), but the specific God of a given religion that listens to your prayers at near 0%.
Antitheist is one term, I think the more common one in the same area would be Gnostic Atheist, which given my definitions from before would claim knowledge that gods don’t exist.
As with anything there are always more sub categories, some go as far as to say knowledge of God is unknowable, or that no form of a God exists, but most seem to stick with Agnostic Atheist, or just Atheist.
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”
Heh… Xtians I like that.
Though technically X was Greek shorthand for Christ so Xtians means Christians just as Xmas means Christmas.
But I doubt any Xtians would know that so I think I’m going to start using it.
Well these are the same crowd that likes to chant keep Christ in christmas, because they are offended by Xmas and for some reason Santa claus, even though Saint Nicholas was a real person canonized by the Catholic Church
Yup. These people just want something to be angry about, so they aren’t going to let facts get in the way of that.
Crosstians? They sure like to carry them and seem to be quite cross with the rest of society, fits for me.
Many of today’s hard right xtians now complain that the things Jesus said sound overly “woke”.
There were literally cases of Preachers being asked to stop teaching the Sermon on the Mount for being too “leftist”
True. I was raised in a religiously leftist household, and even as a child, when I first came across right wing xtians, I was legitimately confused by how they even exist. Our instruction was pointedly about reading the words of the character of Jesus (or for those too young to read, having it read to you) and boy is there a lot of stuff in there that I have no idea how the hard right xtians explain away.
Of course, there are the later writings from someone who never even MET the character of Jesus, which seem to be more problematic. I think it was RAW that said the people that seem to want to follow Paul more so than Jesus should really be called “Paulian”, not xtians.
Of course, the OT and NT taken as a whole, and then trying to treat it as a cohesive message is a fool’s errand and it quickly falls apart, but…
My dad converted from Christianity to Wicca, but he more or less had the same problem, you saw all of the relatives on his side of the family seemingly refusing to stand by everything they ever taught him.
As for the old and new testament, it really is a fruitless Endeavor to try to make sense of it without the proper background there’s a lot of it requires a historical context or knowledge of alternate translations in order to make much sense. This is why theology is considered a science in and of itself, the science of studying religious texts.
Yeah, I have some extended family that was raised in the more liberal/red letter type of xtianity, only to later “rebel” by veering toward more authoritarian/right wing style of interpretations of “the” bible. Most of them are full maga now and don’t resemble anything I was taught as the core of xtianity.
When it comes to trying to square the “old” and the “new”, I think it’s mostly in the eye of the beholder. A lot of xtians declare they have a “new covenant”, so therefore, they can selectively decide what is not law and what isn’t, especially when it comes to things like dietary laws being rejected. But there is that “not one jot or tittle” portion, and the position that the OT validates the claims made in the NT, so…not sure how they select what they will and will not follow. I think that’s how absurdist things like voting on what is and what is not canon came about…
I watch all of that with a bit of amusement, I must say, much like I watch right wing Americans claim they want this country to follow xtianity and the Constitution, when right off the bat, the First Amendment and first commandment are in obvious conflict with one another…the First Amendment clearly lays out a secular country and the first commandment demonstrates that the god of “the” bible is a jealous god that won’t tolerate anything else but complete devotion. No real way to square that circle without changing this country to something other than its intent, which means they will not be following the Constitution…
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?
This graph categorization makes no sense!
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.
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?
There are kinds of Christian that don’t fall under Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox by their own measure (which doesn’t care how the Big Three want to categorize them). Perhaps this was why? (Probably not.) Graph should have just lumped them all together as “Christian”.
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”.
Gnosticism and theism are two different concepts and it infuriates me that every semi educated loser conflates them.
Just so you’re aware, agnosticism and gnosticism are not the same. Wouldn’t go calling anyone semi-educated and then use the wrong term, if I were you.
Agnosticism is the opposite of gnosticism. It’s “not knowing” vs “knowing”. Theism and atheism is “belief” or “not believing”. Take me for instance, I’m an Agnostic Thiest. I believe there is a God, but I don’t claim to know.
In the late 00s there was a New Atheism movement which was more than just not being religious, sometimes called “capital-A atheism.” People conflate that with normal atheism sometimes. That movement split in the 2010s as culture war became more of a thing.
I’ve always thought that atheists are actively non theistic. Nothing would suggest there is no opinion formed to any conclusion.
I think you thought wrong lol. As an atheist I can assure you I don’t give a shit what anyone else believes haha
Is there a difference between nontheism and atheism? If there is it’s probably subtle.
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.
Yeah, I don’t find any religion I’ve ever run across appealing, but I have no beef with those who do good under the umbrella of their religion and don’t try to beat on others with it.
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.
This isn’t accurate though. In the most semantic, etymological sense perhaps. But atheism is widely understood to be the disbelief in deities. Agnosticism and atheism are very different. One is a position of belief (I cannot prove god doesn’t exist, but I don’t believe it to be so) and one is a position of ignorance (I cannot prove god does exist or doesn’t exist). Words, meanings and definitions are defined by who is interpreting them. This therefore means that the definition is whatever the majority believes it to be. You may as well be looking at a field of flowers and describing them as gay. It may have been the appropriate term once, but it is not now. And we live now. The etymology of the term is not the same as the meaning of the term. Sitting there and prescribing that your interpretation of the term is the correct interpretation reminds me a lot of the tale of King cnut.
deleted by creator
Atheism and Agonistism are under the umbrella of Irreligion or Non-Religious. They are seperate identies.
You can be atheist agnostic - you don’t actively participate in religion or worship but believe it is fundamentally unknowable if there is or is not a god, you can also be theistic agnostic (though this is rare in the modern lexicon) which would be where you do participate in religion (or religious practices) but still believe it to be unanswerable. To be gnostic is to believe it is knowable (and perhaps that one does know), it too can be either theist or atheist in nature.
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 have questions about this survey.
Me too, such as: why is there a separate category for “nothing”, that is literally athiesm…
Not believing in it without any evidence? Wow, I bet youre one of the atheist the graph is talking about.
Getting infuriated over this stupid prick’s bullshit, mildly or otherwise, just isn’t worth 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.
He’s a narcissist to the extreme. The only thing he believes in is himself. And how sad a god it is.
Conservatives give him the love his father never did.
They’re the same picture
you oddly misspelled ‘fascist’ as ‘conservative’.
Turns out, they’re synonyms. *shrug*
I suppose it’s real easy without any actual values or ethics whatsoever.
Good lord this man is stupid
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.
