Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Last time I saw anything it was a trans woman with a cis man.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Poll: Is Woke a new religion?
- Thread starter icehorse
- Start date
I mostly agree with that article, and the issues it listed are among the reasons I refuse to self-identify as a liberal despite sharing many beliefs with mainstream liberalism. However, I also have a few points to note:
• The article is, naturally, entirely focused on American politics and culture. This is understandable given the focus of the Atlantic, but it also fails to take into account the usefulness of "canceling" in some instances. For example, in Germany and Sweden, Nazi speech and symbols are banned (which I fully support), and a politician in the far-right Sweden Democrats party was forced to resign over denigrating comments about Anne Frank.
White supremacists in the US might say they were "canceled" or had their "First Amendment rights" violated over such a thing, but most of Europe is far more stringent when it comes to hate speech. I see the above example as a perfect illustration of why it is indeed sometimes necessary to sideline and shun specific segments of public speakers and ideologues.
This also ties into my disagreement that everything is gray, at least in practice: some things are so clear-cut that not taking appropriate action arguably contributes to significant harm.
• When terrorists attacked Charlie Hebdo cartoonists in France, the French government refused to budge or "cancel" the magazine for the offensive satire. At the same time, France has a ban on Nazi symbols and speech. It retains the right to offend, but it doesn't protect the right to incite against and dehumanize an entire group.
This seems to me far more reasonable than US laws that allow hate speech. I have to wonder how much individual or online "canceling" would be happening in the US if it had more robust hate speech laws. Would individuals feel they even needed to carry out online campaigns to shun or call out certain people?
In my opinion, one is bound to get an incomplete picture by looking at "cancel culture" in the US in isolation of its blasé laws toward hate speech, defamation, and guns. When people feel the law is not protecting them, sometimes they try to take matters into their own hands via other means, such as online campaigns.
The kind of lax speech regulation present in the US is a global anomaly: much of Europe has a balance between free speech and opposition to inciting and hateful speech. China and Russia go overboard and crack down on the tiniest hint of political nonconformity. The Middle East also goes overboard in a theocratically leaning manner by cracking down on religious nonconformity.
Consequently, any discussion about "cancel culture" where the whole focus is on the US without consideration for the laws and cultures of other countries seems to me lacking depth at best. Practically all other developed countries either have far stricter gun laws that render some hate crimes harder to carry out—or at least less likely to be fatal—or hate speech laws that keep the inciters in check to one extent or another. The US has neither, so it makes perfect sense to me that there would be a liberal overreaction as well as more political polarization, online mobs, and well-intentioned but misguided "cancellation" of certain individuals.
Do I think there's a problem of overreaction and online mobs? Yes. Do I think the solution is just to tell them to be "more tolerant" or attack them for being part of "cancel culture"? Not necessarily; perhaps in only a subset of cases at most. I think any real solution would be far more complex and multifaceted than that.
I asked you about trans women. Do you consider yourself a danger to children?
Absolutely not.
And your trans friends aren't dangers to children either, are they?
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Funny how they always fail to include a major result of this, and, yeah, the Dems used to be a horribly racist party but the Reps at that time had more support among black people. But today Reps struggle to get more than a fart from black voters, and more recently have been strongly challenged in easy elections and even defeated by large numbers of black voters.
No trans person is.
I meant that kids don't understand this thing and get confused, that's it.
If they're confused, you explain it. Just like you do now if a child were to ask you.
Good answer. Children ask questions -- and good parents answer them, honestly, without embarrassment, and answer only so much as the child asks. If (s)he wants to know more, (s)he'll ask more. And if not now, then (s)he'll ask more later.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
What an embarrassingly asinine strawman. Nobody is "pushing" anyone to "become" LGBT because that's not how it works, and even if they could magically turn people gay or trans there would be nothing to gain from it. It's about supporting those who already are LGBT.
Get well soon.
I agree with you.
One of the things that we just have to accept about humans is that on any topic, however positive, some people will just go too far, thinking that if "x" is right, then "x-plus" must be better. Thus, it is right, in my view, not to dislike someone simply because of their gender, their race, their height or weight, or that they differ in some way from the mainstream. Find out who they are. Getting to know somebody is step one in accepting them.
But going too far means that not only do we recognize that slavery was (and is) bad, but that we can somehow atone for the past. We really can't. We aren't the past, and we didn't have any impact upon the past (though the past certainly impacted us).
I am very happy that my country now accepts that my lover and I can be a married couple. I do NOT, however, think that anybody owes me compensation for the many years (the majority of my lifetime) when this was not so. It is good that we've come around, but I would be doing everybody a disservice by asking for some sort of "make-up compensation." The Canadian government has pardoned many people convicted of same-sex crimes, and that is good. But they ought not to expect more. When they were convicted, they were convicted of breaking laws that (for better or worse) were enacted at the time.
I said "if".
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
What "if" someone ran full speed into a wall and turned into an accordion?
I seriously don't know where this comes from. I am a gay man. I know -- I KNOW -- that nothing is going to change my orientation. I've lived with it for 75 years, and it ain't going away. But because I know that, I also know (or bloody well ought to) that I can't change anybody else's orientation, either. It just doesn't work that way.
Oh, sure, there are a few sickos (and I mean it the way it sounds) out there that like trying to get people who aren't interested into the sack -- but what a bloody waste of time! Who wants somebody who is incapable of wanting you back? Sheesh!
@Twilight Hue , @Debater Slayer , @Secret Chief , @lewisnotmiller , @exchemist , @Windwalker , @F1fan , @Father Heathen , @Left Coast , @Yerda , @Shadow Wolf , @PureX , @Evangelicalhumanist , @Stevicus , @LuisDantas
Thanks to you and others who have responded to the OP.
I'll try to summarize what FOR ME are the key ideas, definitions, and fallacies I see in this discussion. Just imo:
First off, I don't agree with anyone all the time. I do my best to separate the message from the messenger. That said, I resonate with Bill Maher when he calls himself a "classic liberal"; I believe myself to be a classic liberal.
@lewisnotmiller , I thought the Atlantic article was fantastic!!! The subtitle that "everyone is too vague" seems to be a recurring theme in this thread. I made the OP to be intentionally vague, because I was curious to see what definitions people came to the discussion with.
So now I'll put some of my own stakes in the sand. I'll try to avoid vagueness:
- I agree with @Stevicus when he basically said some folks on the left have good intentions, but bad strategies! E.g., I agree with the broad goals of DEI (diversity, equality, and inclusion). But I often think that the folks pushing DEI agendas become what they're fighting against. For example, many DEI advocates seek to stifle the speech of those who disagree with their tactics. (An example link of this happening in the UK follows.)
- I use "woke" - as it's sometimes used in 2023 - to mean: extreme left thought police. (@Father Heathen - I got the inspiration for this definition from you.) Not a perfect definition, but a starting place. I'm not at all attached to the term "woke", but I do think it's important for there to be a term for people when they behave like extreme left thought police. Suggestions for a better term are welcome!
- I disagree with the idea that only folks on the right or far-right are worried about the "woke". That seems like a sort of blanket ad hominem, that makes my argument for me?
- I think that "canceling" comes in many forms, and that it's far more prevalent than is healthy. For example, in the video I link to below, a recent poll of university students in the UK indicates that 50% of students feel they need to "self-censor" themselves on many topics being dominated by the "woke". This isn't a celebrity like Dave Chappelle being canceled, this is students by the thousands. Another form of canceling is happening to moderate or conservative professors. While I might not agree with a conservative professor or student, I will darned well fight for their right to speak.
- I would argue that the whole point of university is to expose yourself to ideas that might make you uncomfortable. One of the biggest problems I have with the "woke" is the idea that a person somehow has a right to not be uncomfortable and that right is more important than the right to speak (or hear!), challenging opinions.
- Finally, as for the comparison to religion..
- the "woke" are frequently dogmatic
- the "woke" frequent use magical thinking
- the "woke" are frequently divisive and tribal
Of course these aren't the best characteristics of religion, but sadly, they're all too common.
The following video is about how extreme left thought police - the woke - in universities in the UK are undermining one of university's prime directives, free discussion and debate. It's not a perfect video by any stretch. But I think if you watch the first 10-15 minutes you'll get the gist of some important ideas and data:
Thanks to you and others who have responded to the OP.
I'll try to summarize what FOR ME are the key ideas, definitions, and fallacies I see in this discussion. Just imo:
First off, I don't agree with anyone all the time. I do my best to separate the message from the messenger. That said, I resonate with Bill Maher when he calls himself a "classic liberal"; I believe myself to be a classic liberal.
@lewisnotmiller , I thought the Atlantic article was fantastic!!! The subtitle that "everyone is too vague" seems to be a recurring theme in this thread. I made the OP to be intentionally vague, because I was curious to see what definitions people came to the discussion with.
So now I'll put some of my own stakes in the sand. I'll try to avoid vagueness:
- I agree with @Stevicus when he basically said some folks on the left have good intentions, but bad strategies! E.g., I agree with the broad goals of DEI (diversity, equality, and inclusion). But I often think that the folks pushing DEI agendas become what they're fighting against. For example, many DEI advocates seek to stifle the speech of those who disagree with their tactics. (An example link of this happening in the UK follows.)
- I use "woke" - as it's sometimes used in 2023 - to mean: extreme left thought police. (@Father Heathen - I got the inspiration for this definition from you.) Not a perfect definition, but a starting place. I'm not at all attached to the term "woke", but I do think it's important for there to be a term for people when they behave like extreme left thought police. Suggestions for a better term are welcome!
- I disagree with the idea that only folks on the right or far-right are worried about the "woke". That seems like a sort of blanket ad hominem, that makes my argument for me?
- I think that "canceling" comes in many forms, and that it's far more prevalent than is healthy. For example, in the video I link to below, a recent poll of university students in the UK indicates that 50% of students feel they need to "self-censor" themselves on many topics being dominated by the "woke". This isn't a celebrity like Dave Chappelle being canceled, this is students by the thousands. Another form of canceling is happening to moderate or conservative professors. While I might not agree with a conservative professor or student, I will darned well fight for their right to speak.
- I would argue that the whole point of university is to expose yourself to ideas that might make you uncomfortable. One of the biggest problems I have with the "woke" is the idea that a person somehow has a right to not be uncomfortable and that right is more important than the right to speak (or hear!), challenging opinions.
- Finally, as for the comparison to religion..
- the "woke" are frequently dogmatic
- the "woke" frequent use magical thinking
- the "woke" are frequently divisive and tribal
Of course these aren't the best characteristics of religion, but sadly, they're all too common.
The following video is about how extreme left thought police - the woke - in universities in the UK are undermining one of university's prime directives, free discussion and debate. It's not a perfect video by any stretch. But I think if you watch the first 10-15 minutes you'll get the gist of some important ideas and data:
Last edited:
It doesn’t
That’s, ironically, anti LGBT propaganda
That was being debunked by folks since before I was born
Wtf?
From the description of the video:
"Gender theory" is merely the current scientific consensus on gender. Tying it into leftist beliefs is like saying that accepting evolution is exclusively atheistic. Furthermore, "cultural marxist [sic] beliefs" is yet another overly vague and weaponized term. What exactly is "cultural Marxism"? I'm a Marxist, and I prefer pluralism to multiculturalism, disagree with some of the liberal oversensitivity surrounding Islam in particular, and support robust immigration laws. Do I fall under the "cultural Marxist" umbrella?
This is a clearly ideologically biased source, which would be okay if that didn't bring into question its reliability and methods of gauging opinions.
You also didn't specify whether the conservative professors got "canceled" for speaking their minds in general or only for doing so on campus. The campus of a private university is not subject to free speech laws because it is part of a private institution. A university is perfectly within its rights to fire a professor for, say, telling his students during a lecture that he believes trans people are "delusional" or that he supports conversion therapy.
The Atlantic article talked about lack of clarity. I think we're seeing a lot of that in this thread, and in my opinion, your post above is no exception.
exchemist
Veteran Member
My son is at a British university and he sees none of this. I suspect it is whipping up hysteria about a largely imaginary threat, though I don't deny there are some instances of politically correct censorship in the UK academic scene - and more widely (cf. the current attacks on J K Rowling for expressing a reasoned point of view regarding trans people).
Your video is one of a series from a UK right wing think tank (or w*nk tank as we sometimes call them over here
) funded by inter alia the Koch Bros and headed by a former member of UKIP, Nigel Farage's former far right party:55 Tufton Street - Wikipedia Back to the thread title, I find it particularly unfortunate that a term that denoted awareness of racial injustice in racist America is being hijacked by the Right to be used as a disparaging label for anything they consider left wing. It is obvious that using it in this way also, highly conveniently and not coincidentally, disparages those who campaign for racial justice, i.e. "woke" in the original sense. We should be encouraging all members of racial minorities to be "woke" and we should all be helping to get rid of the last vestiges of racial prejudice. We all know it is still among us. So let's please find another term for general cultural leftiness and let's not treat racial injustice as a preoccupation of the Left. It should be something we can all sign up to.
My son is at a British university and he sees none of this. I suspect it is whipping up hysteria about a largely imaginary threat, though I don't deny there are some instances of politically correct censorship in the UK academic scene - and more widely (cf. the current attacks on J K Rowling for expressing a reasoned point of view regarding trans people).
Your video is one of a series from a UK right wing think tank (or w*nk tank as we sometimes call them over here
Back to the thread title, I find it particularly unfortunate that a term that denoted awareness of racial injustice in racist America is being hijacked by the Right to be used as a disparaging label for anything they consider left wing. It is obvious that using it in this way also, highly conveniently and not coincidentally, disparages those who campaign for racial justice, i.e. "woke" in the original sense. We should be encouraging all members of racial minorities to be "woke" and we should all be helping to get rid of the last vestiges of racial prejudice. We all know it is still among us. So let's please find another term for general cultural leftiness and let's not treat racial injustice as a preoccupation of the Left. It should be something we can all sign up to.
I disagree that Rowling's perspectives are reasoned (save for two or three points she made among the deluge of prejudice), but I gave your post a "Winner" for correctly dissecting the deeply unreliable and biased source behind the video.
Yerda
Veteran Member
Is my experience tiring for you?