How is woke a religion?

3 years ago by ruford1976 to c/mildlyinfuriating

Swedneck 170 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3400270, hotness: undefined, score: 170, children: 46
IchNichtenLichten 103 points 3 years ago

"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.

path: 0 3400270 3400476, hotness: undefined, score: 103, children: 25
AlternatePersonMan 42 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3400270 3400476 3402101, hotness: undefined, score: 42, children: 12
IchNichtenLichten 15 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3400270 3400476 3402101 3402618, hotness: undefined, score: 15, children: 5
fushuan 7 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3400270 3400476 3402101 3402618 3419951, hotness: undefined, score: 7, children: 2
AlternatePersonMan 5 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3400270 3400476 3402101 3402618 3413347, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 0
HughJanus 0 points 3 years ago
path: 0 3400270 3400476 3402101 3402618 3433680, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 0
DarkGamer 13 points 3 years ago

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."

path: 0 3400270 3400476 3402101 3402733, hotness: undefined, score: 13, children: 4
markr 12 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3400270 3400476 3402101 3402733 3405456, hotness: undefined, score: 12, children: 0
dragonflyteaparty 5 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3400270 3400476 3402101 3402733 3415626, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 2
HughJanus 3 points 3 years ago
path: 0 3400270 3400476 3402101 3432905, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0
LazaroFilm 20 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3400270 3400476 3402902, hotness: undefined, score: 20, children: 3
IchNichtenLichten 3 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3400270 3400476 3402902 3402942, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 2
LazaroFilm 11 points 3 years ago

That’s the Bs meaning they’re giving. It’s like the way they change the definition of patriotism to match nationalism.

path: 0 3400270 3400476 3402902 3402942 3405429, hotness: undefined, score: 11, children: 1
teft 12 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3400270 3400476 3402592, hotness: undefined, score: 12, children: 4
IchNichtenLichten 15 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3400270 3400476 3402592 3402731, hotness: undefined, score: 15, children: 3
Maeve 5 points 3 years ago

Except activist judges legislating from the bench is real, and they seem to be the worst possible humans doing so. “Seem” being key.

path: 0 3400270 3400476 3402592 3402731 3406973, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 2
Uranium3006 5 points 3 years ago

"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

path: 0 3400270 3400476 3402770, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 1
IchNichtenLichten 0 points 3 years ago

Maybe? I don't have a definite timeline and there were lots of groups talking to each other.

path: 0 3400270 3400476 3402770 3402972, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 0
Neato 5 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3400270 3400476 3403009, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 0
doleo 13 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3400270 3400799, hotness: undefined, score: 13, children: 1
Maeve 3 points 3 years ago

I’m going with the “mask off” probability.

path: 0 3400270 3400799 3407196, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0
LazaroFilm 13 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3400270 3402862, hotness: undefined, score: 13, children: 0
CanadaPlus 2 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3400270 3401880, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0
Daft_ish 0 points 3 years ago

Kinda like being against anti-fascists... aka fascists.

path: 0 3400270 3446037, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 0
Turkey_Titty_city -10 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3400270 3400971, hotness: undefined, score: -10, children: 8
IchNichtenLichten 29 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3400270 3400971 3402828, hotness: undefined, score: 29, children: 1
Daft_ish 4 points 3 years ago

The other day a TrAnSGenDEr WoKe person came into my yard and kicked my dog. And I WOULD know. I'm a dog.

path: 0 3400270 3400971 3402828 3446089, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 0
scrubbles 12 points 3 years ago

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

path: 0 3400270 3400971 3403563, hotness: undefined, score: 12, children: 0
archiotterpup 10 points 3 years ago

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".

path: 0 3400270 3400971 3401233, hotness: undefined, score: 10, children: 0
SaltySalamander 9 points 3 years ago

Yea I don't believe any of this. =)

path: 0 3400270 3400971 3413118, hotness: undefined, score: 9, children: 0
SuddenlyBlowGreen 7 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3400270 3400971 3429041, hotness: undefined, score: 7, children: 0
FlyingSquid 2 points 3 years ago

You do sound like a shitty awful human being if I'm to be honest.

path: 0 3400270 3400971 3425725, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0
neanderthal 1 point 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3400270 3400971 3402864, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
Blamemeta -32 points 3 years ago

Except woke people aren't decent. Some woke people have good intentions, sure, but they aren't decent. Being woke means being evil.

path: 0 3400270 3401923, hotness: undefined, score: -32, children: 5
Swedneck 23 points 3 years ago

this is actually incoherent

path: 0 3400270 3401923 3401979, hotness: undefined, score: 23, children: 2
IchNichtenLichten 22 points 3 years ago

I have mixed feelings about Lemmy still being so small that I can recognize usernames and think, "oh, there's that nut job again"

path: 0 3400270 3401923 3401979 3402869, hotness: undefined, score: 22, children: 1
FlyingSquid 2 points 3 years ago

One of these days, I'll pay attention to usernames. It didn't happen on Reddit for over a decade, but you never know.

path: 0 3400270 3401923 3401979 3402869 3425736, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0
Carighan 13 points 3 years ago

Well, do explain then.

path: 0 3400270 3401923 3402122, hotness: undefined, score: 13, children: 0
Jimbo 1 point 3 years ago

Haha oh yeah I've seen your around. Fuck off.

path: 0 3400270 3401923 3410555, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
markr 139 points 3 years ago

Lumping 'always' with 'sometimes' is cooking your results to meet your objective.

path: 0 3405370, hotness: undefined, score: 139, children: 3
ZC3rr0r 32 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3405370 3405656, hotness: undefined, score: 32, children: 2
ffolkes 13 points 3 years ago

I like how they count "Nothing", "No response", and "Other" as being separate religions so that the chart looks nore intimidating.

path: 0 3405370 3405656 3415980, hotness: undefined, score: 13, children: 0
phillaholic 3 points 3 years ago

It’s by a right-wing / libertarian think tank. Spinning whatever bs they want.

path: 0 3405370 3405656 3440152, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0
bradorsomething 97 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3417376, hotness: undefined, score: 97, children: 2
ChaoticNeutralCzech 23 points 3 years ago path: 0 3417376 3418758, hotness: undefined, score: 23, children: 1
Cort 2 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3417376 3418758 3445241, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0
Ranvier 97 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3407974, hotness: undefined, score: 97, children: 3
XanXic 57 points 3 years ago

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"

path: 0 3407974 3410329, hotness: undefined, score: 57, children: 1
III 22 points 3 years ago

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"

path: 0 3407974 3410329 3415158, hotness: undefined, score: 22, children: 0
Kalkaline 16 points 3 years ago
path: 0 3407974 3408637, hotness: undefined, score: 16, children: 0
Djtecha 81 points 3 years ago

Ahh yes a graph without citation of research, lovely

path: 0 3418228, hotness: undefined, score: 81, children: 2
Seasoned_Greetings 17 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3418228 3423639, hotness: undefined, score: 17, children: 0
bradorsomething 2 points 3 years ago

I made a comment below, this is from a conservative research group funded by the remaining Koch brother, among other conservatives.

path: 0 3418228 3433803, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0
Izzy 68 points 3 years ago

What does it mean to "Shout down a speaker"? What are they speaking about and what is the purpose of shouting at them?

path: 0 3399848, hotness: undefined, score: 68, children: 7
kent_eh 72 points 3 years ago

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 rest of the world to tell them to STFU.

path: 0 3399848 3399983, hotness: undefined, score: 72, children: 2
Izzy 15 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3399848 3399983 3400177, hotness: undefined, score: 15, children: 1
kent_eh 4 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3399848 3399983 3400177 3407839, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 0
ninjan 26 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3399848 3400158, hotness: undefined, score: 26, children: 0
tburkhol 0 points 3 years ago

And does it apply only to verbal, podium speech, or also to written books and speech by people in [drag] costume.

path: 0 3399848 3401163, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 0
Turkey_Titty_city -8 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3399848 3401021, hotness: undefined, score: -8, children: 1
Microplasticbrain 4 points 3 years ago
path: 0 3399848 3401021 3408636, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 0
teft 65 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3402498, hotness: undefined, score: 65, children: 14
TheDoozer 24 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3402498 3406791, hotness: undefined, score: 24, children: 2
money_loo 8 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3402498 3406791 3410611, hotness: undefined, score: 8, children: 1
III 6 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3402498 3406791 3410611 3415211, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 0
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA 8 points 3 years ago

I make my own up. There's a giant space crab coming to devour us all WORSHIP THEM

path: 0 3402498 3405062, hotness: undefined, score: 8, children: 1
teft 8 points 3 years ago

path: 0 3402498 3405062 3405562, hotness: undefined, score: 8, children: 0
Lonnie123 7 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3402498 3417951, hotness: undefined, score: 7, children: 0
ByteWizard 4 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3402498 3403333, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 0
affiliate -3 points 3 years ago
path: 0 3402498 3406675, hotness: undefined, score: -3, children: 1
Zombiepirate 1 point 3 years ago
path: 0 3402498 3406675 3407545, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
barsoap -19 points 3 years ago

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).

path: 0 3402498 3403923, hotness: undefined, score: -19, children: 4
teft 15 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3402498 3403923 3404528, hotness: undefined, score: 15, children: 1
barsoap -8 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3402498 3403923 3404528 3404940, hotness: undefined, score: -8, children: 0
III 4 points 3 years ago

Is science a process or a world-view? That fact you apparently can't tell the difference is the problem here.

path: 0 3402498 3403923 3415261, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 1
barsoap -1 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3402498 3403923 3415261 3421346, hotness: undefined, score: -1, children: 0
crackajack 51 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3424798, hotness: undefined, score: 51, children: 13
Gamey 17 points 3 years ago

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!

path: 0 3424798 3425399, hotness: undefined, score: 17, children: 6
crackajack 7 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3424798 3425399 3428932, hotness: undefined, score: 7, children: 3
uint8_t 2 points 3 years ago

never led to genocide?? how about indigenous people?

path: 0 3424798 3425399 3428932 3433838, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 1
crackajack 1 point 3 years ago

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).

path: 0 3424798 3425399 3428932 3433838 3444217, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
Monument 1 point 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3424798 3425399 3428932 3434122, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
qyron 1 point 3 years ago

Hear hear!

path: 0 3424798 3425399 3426051, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
aidan -3 points 3 years ago

No one has a freedom from someone saying something mean about them

path: 0 3424798 3425399 3429984, hotness: undefined, score: -3, children: 0
YouSuckLikeLatte 7 points 3 years ago

The Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide didn't happen because of absolute free speech. Quite on the contrary: freedom of speech was heavily suppressed

path: 0 3424798 3427831, hotness: undefined, score: 7, children: 4
crackajack 15 points 3 years ago

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".

path: 0 3424798 3427831 3428722, hotness: undefined, score: 15, children: 3
KevonLooney 16 points 3 years ago path: 0 3424798 3427831 3428722 3429162, hotness: undefined, score: 16, children: 0
aidan 2 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3424798 3427831 3428722 3429975, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 1
crackajack 5 points 3 years ago

Good point.

path: 0 3424798 3427831 3428722 3429975 3430103, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 0
Staccato 6 points 3 years ago

Yeah this is an example of "lying with graphs 101".

The data probably didn't fit the narrative when they separate "always" and "sometimes"

path: 0 3424798 3439815, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 0
Notorious_handholder 46 points 3 years ago

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!

path: 0 3442265, hotness: undefined, score: 46, children: 18
wildn0x 2 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3442265 3467712, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0
ThirdNerd 1 point 3 years ago
path: 0 3442265 3557454, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
PM_ME_FEET_PICS -35 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3442265 3442897, hotness: undefined, score: -35, children: 15
CharlesDarwin 29 points 3 years ago

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".

path: 0 3442265 3442897 3446607, hotness: undefined, score: 29, children: 7
Psionicsickness 3 points 3 years ago

Gnosticism and theism are two different concepts and it infuriates me that every semi educated loser conflates them.

path: 0 3442265 3442897 3446607 3459170, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 2
Jax 0 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3442265 3442897 3446607 3459170 3473599, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 1
banneryear1868 2 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3442265 3442897 3446607 3449048, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0
PilferJynx -10 points 3 years ago

I've always thought that atheists are actively non theistic. Nothing would suggest there is no opinion formed to any conclusion.

path: 0 3442265 3442897 3446607 3450907, hotness: undefined, score: -10, children: 2
RagingRobot 11 points 3 years ago

I think you thought wrong lol. As an atheist I can assure you I don't give a shit what anyone else believes haha

path: 0 3442265 3442897 3446607 3450907 3451318, hotness: undefined, score: 11, children: 1
SeaJ 21 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3442265 3442897 3443872, hotness: undefined, score: 21, children: 1
phx 2 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3442265 3442897 3443872 3451112, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0
bigschnitz 19 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3442265 3442897 3443235, hotness: undefined, score: 19, children: 4
Jackeoh -10 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3442265 3442897 3443235 3444754, hotness: undefined, score: -10, children: 3
doom_and_gloom 2 points 3 years ago
path: 0 3442265 3442897 3443235 3444754 3446417, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 2
Mrs_deWinter 46 points 3 years ago

Basically, "every opinion I don't like is a religion."

path: 0 3432670, hotness: undefined, score: 46, children: 18
ruford1976 5 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3432670 3433590, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 15
Chriskmee 9 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3432670 3433590 3440651, hotness: undefined, score: 9, children: 4
Jackeoh 1 point 3 years ago

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'.

path: 0 3432670 3433590 3440651 3444978, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 3
Chriskmee 3 points 3 years ago

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".

path: 0 3432670 3433590 3440651 3444978 3446043, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 2
HawlSera 8 points 3 years ago

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"

path: 0 3432670 3433590 3434775, hotness: undefined, score: 8, children: 9
SpaceCowboy 3 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3432670 3433590 3434775 3447835, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 2
HawlSera 2 points 3 years ago

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

path: 0 3432670 3433590 3434775 3447835 3448300, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 1
stringere 3 points 3 years ago

Crosstians? They sure like to carry them and seem to be quite cross with the rest of society, fits for me.

path: 0 3432670 3433590 3434775 3438232, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0
CharlesDarwin 2 points 3 years ago

Many of today's hard right xtians now complain that the things Jesus said sound overly "woke".

path: 0 3432670 3433590 3434775 3446698, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 4
HawlSera 2 points 3 years ago

There were literally cases of Preachers being asked to stop teaching the Sermon on the Mount for being too "leftist"

path: 0 3432670 3433590 3434775 3446698 3447088, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 3
ghostBones 5 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3432670 3446377, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 1
CharlesDarwin 2 points 3 years ago

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!".

path: 0 3432670 3446377 3446682, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0
Buddahriffic 39 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3414967, hotness: undefined, score: 39, children: 1
aidan 3 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3414967 3430081, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0
archiotterpup 38 points 3 years ago

I have questions about this survey.

path: 0 3401334, hotness: undefined, score: 38, children: 2
Venat0r 10 points 3 years ago

Me too, such as: why is there a separate category for "nothing", that is literally athiesm...

path: 0 3401334 3404802, hotness: undefined, score: 10, children: 0
Lonnie123 4 points 3 years ago

Not believing in it without any evidence? Wow, I bet youre one of the atheist the graph is talking about.

path: 0 3401334 3417968, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 0
amio 36 points 3 years ago

Getting infuriated over this stupid prick's bullshit, mildly or otherwise, just isn't worth it.

path: 0 3403359, hotness: undefined, score: 36, children: 7
scrubbles 37 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3403359 3403531, hotness: undefined, score: 37, children: 6
Tenthrow 15 points 3 years ago

He's a narcissist to the extreme. The only thing he believes in is himself. And how sad a god it is.

path: 0 3403359 3403531 3407586, hotness: undefined, score: 15, children: 2
kmkz_ninja 6 points 3 years ago

Conservatives give him the love his father never did.

path: 0 3403359 3403531 3407586 3407960, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 1
TopShelfVanilla 4 points 3 years ago

They're the same picture

path: 0 3403359 3403531 3407586 3407960 3408974, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 0
markr 10 points 3 years ago

you oddly misspelled 'fascist' as 'conservative'.

path: 0 3403359 3403531 3405254, hotness: undefined, score: 10, children: 1
RubiksIsocahedron 12 points 3 years ago
path: 0 3403359 3403531 3405254 3406345, hotness: undefined, score: 12, children: 0
amio 9 points 3 years ago

I suppose it's real easy without any actual values or ethics whatsoever.

path: 0 3403359 3403531 3403766, hotness: undefined, score: 9, children: 0
Reverendender 34 points 3 years ago

Good lord this man is stupid

path: 0 3410345, hotness: undefined, score: 34, children: 0
phx 31 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3417633, hotness: undefined, score: 31, children: 2
intensely_human -12 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3417633 3418346, hotness: undefined, score: -12, children: 1
phx 13 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3417633 3418346 3420425, hotness: undefined, score: 13, children: 0
woelkchen 31 points 3 years ago

Atheists: shout at people.

Religious disciples: shoot people.

path: 0 3411717, hotness: undefined, score: 31, children: 14
Something_Complex 1 point 3 years ago

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

path: 0 3411717 3413792, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 2
woelkchen 11 points 3 years ago

I don't need to ask a neo Nazi on a stage any questions first.

path: 0 3411717 3413792 3418542, hotness: undefined, score: 11, children: 1
Redditiscancer789 4 points 3 years ago

Sure we do, "who's your co conspirators?"

path: 0 3411717 3413792 3418542 3420081, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 0
intensely_human -14 points 3 years ago

Oh yeah we’ve never had any problems with large atheist-run organized mass shootings 🙄

path: 0 3411717 3418365, hotness: undefined, score: -14, children: 10
woelkchen 11 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3411717 3418365 3418584, hotness: undefined, score: 11, children: 9
Redditiscancer789 6 points 3 years ago

Mother fucker up there acting like he ain't ever heard of the crusades, Spanish inquisition, Salem witch trials, or the genocide of the Buddhist population in tiabet to name a few, though the Buddhist population genocide could be argued as atheist since it was perpetrated by CCP who don't believe in most religions.

path: 0 3411717 3418365 3418584 3420106, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 6
woelkchen 5 points 3 years ago

It's not an atheist genocide when it's not motivated by atheism. People can follow more than one doctrine. An ultra nationalist can go to church but an attack on foreigners would be a nationalist motive and not a Christian one.

path: 0 3411717 3418365 3418584 3420106 3424018, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 2
intensely_human 0 points 3 years ago

And you’re acting like you never heard of the Holocaust, the GULAG, or the Great Leap Forward.

path: 0 3411717 3418365 3418584 3420106 3433084, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 2
intensely_human 0 points 3 years ago

Oh really? What numbers would you attribute to religious versus atheist mass killings?

path: 0 3411717 3418365 3418584 3433073, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 1
woelkchen 1 point 3 years ago

Which atheist mass killings were there? Racist killings by someone who happened to be an atheist don't count because the religion was not the driving force in those cases.

path: 0 3411717 3418365 3418584 3433073 3435396, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
AnyProgressIsGood 30 points 3 years ago

Theres a few problems with this random graph. Wouldn't be surprised if it was just made up

path: 0 3402657, hotness: undefined, score: 30, children: 1
Tedrick02 6 points 3 years ago

It literally says 2024 ranking. That should be red flag #1.

path: 0 3402657 3416909, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 0
Commiunism 29 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3440590, hotness: undefined, score: 29, children: 4
nooneescapesthelaw 5 points 3 years ago

Atheist are not the same thing as agnostics...

path: 0 3440590 3445061, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 3
AdolfSchmitler 3 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3440590 3445061 3445780, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0
areyouevenreal 1 point 3 years ago

They didn't say they were

path: 0 3440590 3445061 3446034, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
Zink 1 point 3 years ago

They are, however, “pretty much” the same thing.

Most self-described atheists are also agnostic. That is, they don’t claim to KNOW that they are right not to believe.

Most self-described agnostics are also atheists. That is, they are not theists.

Both can generally be described as agnostic atheists, as can most rational non believers.

path: 0 3440590 3445061 3472154, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
Zeth0s 23 points 3 years ago

Non-American here. What is Christian and why Catholic, protestant, and orthodox Christians are not Christians?

This doesn't make much sense

path: 0 3401362, hotness: undefined, score: 23, children: 11
IchNichtenLichten 8 points 3 years ago

It's a tale as old as time, just like the Judean People's Front. Fucking splitters.

path: 0 3401362 3402914, hotness: undefined, score: 8, children: 0
DocMcStuffin 5 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3401362 3402562, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 0
Rhynoplaz 5 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3401362 3402292, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 0
markr 4 points 3 years ago

It's a horrible graph. Likely they meant 'evangelical protestant' to differentiate that group from protestants like Lutherans Methodists Anglicans etc.

path: 0 3401362 3405545, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 0
OneOrTheOtherDontAskMe 4 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3401362 3402802, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 2
Zeth0s 2 points 3 years ago

Thanks for taking the time to reply! But why are Christians and protestants separated in the figure?

path: 0 3401362 3402802 3405537, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 1
OneOrTheOtherDontAskMe 1 point 3 years ago

Oh that I couldn't answer. They probably are referencing a study where those options were listed. A lot of practicing Christians I know aren't even positive what they declare so they just put down non-denominational, I'm assuming 'Christian' was another good catch-all term that nabbed anyone who had a general belief in Christ but no organized practice of that belief.

path: 0 3401362 3402802 3405537 3407810, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
Magister 2 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3401362 3402199, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 1
OneOrTheOtherDontAskMe 2 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3401362 3402199 3402936, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0
Efwis 1 point 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3401362 3402325, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
charonn0 1 point 3 years ago path: 0 3401362 3404014, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
IHaveTwoCows 23 points 3 years ago
path: 0 3421673, hotness: undefined, score: 23, children: 0
CharlesDarwin 19 points 3 years ago

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...

path: 0 3433288, hotness: undefined, score: 19, children: 10
Weirdfish 9 points 3 years ago

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".

path: 0 3433288 3434982, hotness: undefined, score: 9, children: 0
PsychedSy 3 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3433288 3442978, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0
HawlSera 1 point 3 years ago

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 say this as an agnostic person for the record.

path: 0 3433288 3434904, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 7
CharlesDarwin 2 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3433288 3434904 3446763, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 6
HawlSera 0 points 3 years ago

Basically anyone who tries to militarize rationalism as a movement or tries to use science as a religion... very often these turn into misogyny, bigotry, and pseudoscience

Those three are specifically infamous as Sam Harris uses pseudoscience to justify a lack of belief in free will as straight up fact and white washes Buddhism to be "Like Atheism, but you meditate!"... but his open hostility to the religious is concerning as he literally writes in his book The End of Faith that the world would only be safe if a preemptive nuke was dropped on the middle east.

Sam Harris also parrots the talking points of Jordan Peterson and features him regularly on his podcast

Richard Dawkins is a transphobic asshole who compared transpeople to black face, shrugged off a woman being sexually assaulted at his conference as "She should be grateful, a muslim would have done worse" (a scandal known as Elevatorgate) also engages in pseudoscience to push his "Memetics" nonsense

Hitchens is the least horrible of the three, but that's only because he was dead long before Dawkins and Harris went fully radical.

Christopher Hitchens mainly wrote a bunch of books painting Christianity in a bad light.. that itself is fine.. the issue is he'd often fabricate evidence. One well known case of this; claiming Thomas Aquinas, a philosopher famous for coming up with what many theist still believe is the best evidence for god, was a "man of one book" and using cherry picked qoutes to justify it.. even though Aquinas actually warned against zealots and the full version of the original qoute was actually telling people to be wary of men of "only one book" for there was more to understand the world and God than simply the bible.

Hitchens is also responsible for the clickbait articles claiming Mother Theresa was a monster, making various accusations of her laundering money from charity with no evidence, taking quotes from her on suffering out of context to make her look like a masochist, berating her for refusing to use morphine (despite operating in India, a

ountry where morphine was illegal even for medical use) and bizzarely claimed her hospices were actually hospitals. When not only were they hospices but she basically invented the concept at a time when bedside manner was basically unheard of in professional medicine.

Many of these bogus and heavily debunked claims are from the book "Hell's Angel" which Hitchens wrote.

The cherry on top was Hitchens actually claimed the Catholic Church was trying to stop him from bad-mouthing Mother Theresa out of fear he would "give away their game".. when the opposite was true, they literally invited him to the Vatican to speak out against her canonization as it is tradition that critics and skeptics of potiential saints be given a chance to make their case before anything final is decided.

While there are many great arguments for not believing in God or really any supernatural phenomena of any kind... these three are infamous for fabricating and weaponizing such arguments for personal gain.

path: 0 3433288 3434904 3446763 3447064, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 5
banneryear1868 1 point 3 years ago

I was a new monasticist Christian who deconstructed during this whole atheism thing and can vouch for all of this. We read some of these atheism books in Bible studies because they were both prevalent and quite lazily written, like these "four horsemen" just didn't have a good grasp on philosophy. I even had an agnostic philosophy prof come to a Christian Bible study and explain some of the mainstream and competing views in philosophy about these subjects and it kind of validated how they weren't serious as philosophers. After I lost my whole social group when I lost my faith I decided to check out an atheist group, which I attended for a time, but there were always these people who loved these terrible arguments for atheism and even wanted to go evangelize door to door about atheism. The group split in to culture war factions and died shortly after I stopped attending in 2012. It was worth it because I met a few very dear friends from this endeavor, but we all agreed this whole thing was trash.

path: 0 3433288 3434904 3446763 3447064 3449218, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 3
CharlesDarwin 1 point 3 years ago

What are the set of beliefs (or lack thereof) that require someone advocate for any of these things, though? You are saying these individuals behaved/are behaving badly - okay, let's assume that is true. What about irreligion would lead to any of that?

When you say they "militarize" rationalism, how have any of these people done that? All of them are still proponents of liberal democracies.

path: 0 3433288 3434904 3446763 3447064 3447266, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
krayj 17 points 3 years ago

TIL, my belief that I have the right to call out bullshit when I see it is considered a religion now.

path: 0 3403025, hotness: undefined, score: 17, children: 2
CMLVI 8 points 3 years ago

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...

path: 0 3403025 3404570, hotness: undefined, score: 8, children: 0
Maeve 3 points 3 years ago

Certain people can not imagine multiperspectivity, let alone understand or try it.

path: 0 3403025 3407402, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0
smollittlefrog 17 points 3 years ago

Why is there a "Nothing" under the beliefs? Wouldn't that fall under "Agnostic"?

path: 0 3409217, hotness: undefined, score: 17, children: 1
lugal 10 points 3 years ago

As a 'no response'r, I'm not going to answer you

path: 0 3409217 3410449, hotness: undefined, score: 10, children: 0
zeppo 14 points 3 years ago

Who the fuck knows. Stupid shit like this that barely even makes sense is why Elron is famed for being an incredibly pretentious but dim tool.

path: 0 3430482, hotness: undefined, score: 14, children: 0
starman2112 14 points 3 years ago

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

path: 0 3400780, hotness: undefined, score: 14, children: 3
son_named_bort 6 points 3 years ago

My guess is that it was two answers, but few answered always, so they combined the two in the chart to make the point they wanted to make.

path: 0 3400780 3405602, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 1
arandomthought 2 points 3 years ago

That's exactly what I thought when I saw this. Looks very "lying with statistics"!

path: 0 3400780 3405602 3408027, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0
neanderthal 6 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3400780 3402994, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 0
Steve 13 points 3 years ago

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.

The Jedi and Sith, are both atheist.

path: 0 3402543, hotness: undefined, score: 13, children: 2
scrubbles 9 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3402543 3403700, hotness: undefined, score: 9, children: 1
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA 6 points 3 years ago

I grew up in a cult. I totally had a coming out party.

path: 0 3402543 3403700 3405146, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 0
Carighan 12 points 3 years ago

TIL that >70% of christians/mormons/other-santa-for-adults-cults would not try to get rid of hatepreachers on campus. Wow. Bleak.

path: 0 3402318, hotness: undefined, score: 12, children: 0
madcaesar 12 points 3 years ago

The speaker in question? Some right wing Christian lunatic!

path: 0 3424391, hotness: undefined, score: 12, children: 0
empireOfLove 11 points 3 years ago path: 0 3400202, hotness: undefined, score: 11, children: 2
Swedneck 7 points 3 years ago

like "states right" states right to do what motherfucker?!

path: 0 3400202 3402010, hotness: undefined, score: 7, children: 1
Nepenthe 7 points 3 years ago

"It wasn't about slavery!"

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.

path: 0 3400202 3402010 3402809, hotness: undefined, score: 7, children: 0
pomodoro_longbreak 11 points 3 years ago

Wow so he actually talks like that

path: 0 3408956, hotness: undefined, score: 11, children: 0
MxM111 11 points 3 years ago

Every religion is a belief system, but not every belief system a religion.

Every billionaire Elon Musk is an idiot, but not every idiot billionaire Elon Musk.

path: 0 3401054, hotness: undefined, score: 11, children: 6
neanderthal 4 points 3 years ago

Go set theory!

Religion is a subset of the set of belief systems.

Elon Musk is a member of the set of billionaires. We could define a set with one member, Elon Musk. It would be a subset of billionaires.

path: 0 3401054 3403075, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 0
Jaysyn -2 points 3 years ago

If someone is yelling obscenities at you

All religion is obscene.

path: 0 3401054 3401791, hotness: undefined, score: -2, children: 4
Nepenthe 0 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3401054 3401791 3403195, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 3
markr 8 points 3 years ago

Depends on the monk. The shitty Buddhists in Myanmar support genocide.

path: 0 3401054 3401791 3403195 3405618, hotness: undefined, score: 8, children: 2
Nepenthe 4 points 3 years ago

Well. "Extremist" and "nationalist" were never words I thought I would see attached to the phrase buddhist monk, but here we are, I fucking guess. That's a thing that I know now.

I'm about to just eschew anything bipedal at this point. Two legs bad.

path: 0 3401054 3401791 3403195 3405618 3406362, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 1
MooseBoys 11 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3415848, hotness: undefined, score: 11, children: 14
kaffiene 16 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3415848 3417578, hotness: undefined, score: 16, children: 12
intensely_human -3 points 3 years ago

Perhaps it’s not “having a world-view” he’s equating with it, but something more specific.

path: 0 3415848 3417578 3418377, hotness: undefined, score: -3, children: 0
MooseBoys -11 points 3 years ago

the two are not the same

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.

path: 0 3415848 3417578 3418079, hotness: undefined, score: -11, children: 10
FooBarrington 12 points 3 years ago

No, this is bullshit. FOSS advocates don't have faith in the one true RMS or whatever you're trying to peddle here. They have a principled stance derived from logic. You're free to disagree with them, but you can't just paint them as religious because they have a stance you disagree with!

path: 0 3415848 3417578 3418079 3419825, hotness: undefined, score: 12, children: 8
MooseBoys -8 points 3 years ago

principled stance derived from logic

Those logical conclusions must inherently flow from philosophical axioms that comprise the person’s world view. Two of the most fundamental axioms that lead to supporting FOSS are not supported by everyone. Namely:

  1. What is “good” exists independent of human convention (i.e. Kantian vs. Utilitarian ethical belief system)
  2. Humans should endeavor to be morally good (i.e. Altruism vs. Egoism)

Those axioms cannot be logically derived from some fundamental truth - they must come from one’s own personal belief system, i.e. their “religion” (definition 3).

Someone following Kantian ethics and Altruism morality (whether or not they’re aware of the names) will probably end up favoring FOSS. Someone who has a more Utilitarian and Egoistic world view will probably be okay with proprietary software.

This is all kind of a moot point because I don’t think this sense of the word is what Musk was referring to - he was probably using it as sense 1 sarcastically and mockingly.

path: 0 3415848 3417578 3418079 3419825 3423617, hotness: undefined, score: -8, children: 7
zeppo 2 points 3 years ago

It’s conceivable but a stretch to say that some people have those beliefs to the extent of a religion. However to say they’re actually a religion would be simply bizarre… nobody thinks Richard Stallman created the earth or something.

path: 0 3415848 3417578 3418079 3430513, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0
kaffiene 1 point 3 years ago
path: 0 3415848 3417569, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
MxM111 11 points 3 years ago

How is being atheist and being woke even related? Is it one of those “god hate gays”?

path: 0 3400873, hotness: undefined, score: 11, children: 0
undercrust 10 points 3 years ago

I think the most impressive thing about this is that they were able to travel a year into the future to obtain the survey data.

path: 0 3400670, hotness: undefined, score: 10, children: 3
snooggums 8 points 3 years ago

School data is labeled by the school year in which it is collected, and the label is the ending year.

The 2024 school year is 7/1/2023 - 6/30/2024, so this was most likely collected within the last month or so after school started.

path: 0 3400670 3401355, hotness: undefined, score: 8, children: 2
DarkGamer 1 point 3 years ago path: 0 3400670 3401355 3402100, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 1
snooggums 5 points 3 years ago

Well that seems like a centrist bullshit site.

Tolerance for Conservative Speakers included four topics such as “Black Lives Matter is a hate group,” and “The lockdown orders issued in response to the coronavirus have infringed on our personal liberties.” When more students indicate that they would be willing to let such a person speak on campus, this indicates a more open free-speech climate.

No, that is a climate that promotes hate speech.

path: 0 3400670 3401355 3402100 3402478, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 0
northendtrooper 9 points 3 years ago

Seems to me that I should follow the religion of Nothing or No response. Because we all know that this a BS bar chart.

path: 0 3400312, hotness: undefined, score: 9, children: 0
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA 8 points 3 years ago

Aww, did someone get peer reviewed?

path: 0 3405040, hotness: undefined, score: 8, children: 0
IWantToFuckSpez 8 points 3 years ago

Why are you intolerant against my intolerance

path: 0 3401909, hotness: undefined, score: 8, children: 0
SendMePhotos 8 points 3 years ago

Wow look at the near perfect Buddhism balance.

path: 0 3430206, hotness: undefined, score: 8, children: 1
stringere 1 point 3 years ago

This is the (middle) way.

path: 0 3430206 3439141, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
bi_tux 7 points 3 years ago

Purely depends on the speaker

path: 0 3428638, hotness: undefined, score: 7, children: 4
aidan 1 point 3 years ago

Yeah obviously, but that was the point. Would you shout down any speaker

path: 0 3428638 3429937, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 3
Pieisawesome 4 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3428638 3429937 3434102, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 1
bob_wiley 2 points 3 years ago
path: 0 3428638 3429937 3434102 3440475, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0
uint8_t 1 point 3 years ago

yes

path: 0 3428638 3429937 3433797, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
InfiniWheel 7 points 3 years ago

Holy meaningless buzzwords batman

path: 0 3405023, hotness: undefined, score: 7, children: 0
vivavideri 6 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3431333, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 1
bob_wiley 0 points 3 years ago
path: 0 3431333 3440406, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 0
n0m4n 6 points 3 years ago

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?

path: 0 3443066, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 0
greavous 4 points 3 years ago

This seems correct. American Christians would probably try and shoot the speaker rather than shout!

path: 0 3422790, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 0
stephenc 4 points 3 years ago
path: 0 3430928, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 0
DarkWasp 4 points 3 years ago
path: 0 3405606, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 0
MaximumOverflow 3 points 3 years ago

We are not censorious. We are just tired of hearing the same predatory bullshit over and over again.

path: 0 3469582, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0
Illuminostro 3 points 3 years ago
path: 0 3407897, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0
CanadaPlus 3 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3401824, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 1
match 4 points 3 years ago

I would cite that shouting back is also free speech

path: 0 3401824 3403210, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 0
CookieJarObserver 2 points 3 years ago
path: 0 3401889, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0
FlickOfTheBean 2 points 3 years ago

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

path: 0 3402322, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0
sndmn 2 points 3 years ago
path: 0 3404154, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0
DarkGamer 1 point 3 years ago

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/...

Still, a lot of the cases they fight for seem to be all over the political spectrum.

path: 0 3402070, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
HawlSera 1 point 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3434563, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 6
WldFyre 2 points 3 years ago

If humans have a need for religion then how do atheists exist?

Do you have a link for that? Not sure I believe that

path: 0 3434563 3438704, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 3
HawlSera 2 points 3 years ago

It's good to be skeptical, afterall, a sourceless claim isn't worth much.

https://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/12/believe

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.

I can find no optimism in that

path: 0 3434563 3438704 3438932, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 2
Honytawk 3 points 3 years ago

Why would there not being a god be a bad thing?

It makes me proud that humanity clawed our way through stages of evolution and was capable of getting where we are now without the need of some overseeing being controlling us like puppets.

If you see someone do good, it means they themselves did that. They chose to help, and not because some authority told them to, but because they are good inside.

Of course, if the fear of being punished is the only thing keeping you from doing harm, then please stay a believer. But the big majority of people do not need that to stay a decent human being.

path: 0 3434563 3438704 3438932 3447178, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 1
HawlSera 0 points 3 years ago

I believe I already told you that I am agnostic, I do not claim to know for certain if God does or does not exist. However I doubt that he does. And I consider a universe without God to be terrifying more so than being punished by God for failure to act in a certain way. The problem with they're not being a god, is that mean this world is all we get, it is our one chance to do anything, and nothing we do will ever be remembered not even by us. Because in a world without the Supernatural death does not mean that it just goes black, it doesn't go anything. You just stop existing.

path: 0 3434563 3438704 3438932 3447178 3448171, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 0
samus12345 2 points 3 years ago

"Woke" is still positive - that's why the right wing hates it.

path: 0 3434563 3440149, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 1
HawlSera 2 points 3 years ago

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"

path: 0 3434563 3440149 3443476, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0
0x2d 1 point 3 years ago

𝕏

path: 0 4309146, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
lugal 1 point 3 years ago

How is Jewish so low?? History doesn't repeat, I still hope it doesn't rhyme either.

path: 0 3410489, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 2
chuckleslord 8 points 3 years ago

You shout nazis out of town. Why is that a bad thing?

path: 0 3410489 3410587, hotness: undefined, score: 8, children: 1
lugal 6 points 3 years ago

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

path: 0 3410489 3410587 3410747, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 0
MataVatnik -1 points 3 years ago

Dogmatic worldviews don't need to be theistic

path: 0 3401176, hotness: undefined, score: -1, children: 0
ArchmageAzor -2 points 3 years ago

"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.

path: 0 3461919, hotness: undefined, score: -2, children: 0
original_ish_name -3 points 3 years ago
path: 0 3407177, hotness: undefined, score: -3, children: 1
HopeOfTheGunblade 2 points 3 years ago

Yeah, with their mission trips, and their door to door no-jesus salesmanship, I hate having to deal with atheists always coming around trying to convince me that I don't need to believe in a god at risk of burning in hell forever. Fucking atheists.

path: 0 3407177 3408720, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0
fushuan -3 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3419917, hotness: undefined, score: -3, children: 5
Licherally 7 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3419917 3420318, hotness: undefined, score: 7, children: 3
fushuan -2 points 3 years ago

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.

path: 0 3419917 3420318 3420705, hotness: undefined, score: -2, children: 2
Gamey 4 points 3 years ago

If something makes absolutely no sense logically and there is zero proof for something and a few tonns of evidence against it (not talking about god but rather every single big religion) it's a rational decition not to believe in it, well that and not every believe is religous...

path: 0 3419917 3420318 3420705 3425439, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 0
Licherally 1 point 3 years ago path: 0 3419917 3420318 3420705 3435388, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
SuddenlyBlowGreen 2 points 3 years ago

The fact that atheism is another belief system is true

The fact that bald is another hair color is true

path: 0 3419917 3429329, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0
fosforus -7 points 3 years ago
path: 0 3451077, hotness: undefined, score: -7, children: 0
mildlyinfuriating
mildlyinfuriating

@lemmy.world

login for more options
47917
2041
5878

Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating" Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that. Please post actually infuriating posts to !actually_infuriating@lemmy.world

I want my day mildly ruined, not completely ruined. Please remember to refrain from reposting old content. If you post a post from reddit it is good practice to include a link and credit the OP. I'm not about stealing content!

It's just good to get something in this website for casual viewing whilst refreshing original content is added overtime.


Rules:

1. Be Respectful

Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content

Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam

Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/Explicit

Content


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,

Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...


7. Content should match the theme of this community.

-Content should be Mildly infuriating. If your post better fits !Actually_Infuriating put it there.

-The Community !actuallyinfuriating has been born so that's where you should post the big stuff.

...


8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, but attribution is not required in any way. No links to Reddit in post body

-If you would like to provide a source link, do so in the comments but not in the post body.

...

...


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Lemmy Review

2.Lemmy Be Wholesome

3.Lemmy Shitpost

4.No Stupid Questions

5.You Should Know

6.Credible Defense


Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.

go to feed...