Why the Anti-Woke Right Has So Many Atheists

[@aeroosprey]

Every time I feel sorry for myself, I remind myself that there are people that are so sad and miserable that the happiness of others offends them

[@jacobsotorios8886]

Like few atheists

[@Kqvikko]

**Cough cough** Jehovah's Witnesses **Cough cough**

[@drachma7434]

And people who think happiness is a finite resource

[@bibleburner8426]

Like so many Christians.

[@Sincere-xf4lp]

I see, at least I ain’t a Conservative, I support anyone who’s positive energy & is happy.

[@lisaboban]

Words like "woke" and "delusion" have a common effect: They end the conversation. There is no way to respond and nothing to debate. I think Dawkins prefers to end conversations than to engage in them.

[@paddleed6176]

Obsession with identity, whether it's "gender identity" or "racial identity"; where everything stands below the self-identified identities and where everything is put on an intersectional ladder. Schooling, the legal system and everything else both legally and informally should take this intersectionality into account, people should be judged better if they're "lower on the intersectional ladder" and worse if they're "higher up on the intersectional ladder". It has an obsession with power and that relates to the intersectionality. Everything is about power so if some group does better than another, that must mean they're discriminating and oppressing the other, it ignores all evidence of both randomness, genetics and cultures. It cancels people all the time, and promotes a culture where it's suddenly okay to cancel everyone for everything. Just like your slag friends here. It's effectively just rebranded socialism that obsesses more with identity than with class, and hence the white man is the evil man that "invented slavery" (completely delusional take). Wokeness IS a religion and left-wing atheists are blindly following it. It's disgusting. How do you debate this?

[@shlokhoms8081]

Yeah those words like "woke" "delusion" "trans phobic" "isl@mophobic".... or i guess only the ones who don't belong to your own side.

[@FrozEnbyWolf150-b9t]

This. They are thought stopping clichés. Now where have you heard those before?

[@lukemackenzie9073]

That’s it. Huge problem today of people using words like that as insults rather than trying to have open dialogues.

[@shlokhoms8081]

@@lisaboban yeah you right. words like tr@nsphobe and isl@mophobe are indeed unhealthy. 🥺

[@malic_zarith]

I've been kind of falling down this anti woke pipeline. It's time to pull myself out.

[@oscarwilliams2628]

Best of luck!

[@celestialsatheist1535]

Just make sure while not being anti woke doesn't make you woke. They are equally destructive. It's a balance. Everything else

[@thehighnoonsaloon7794]

Much respect for the self awareness

[@egeabali]

why?

[@nicoledreamcr4666]

I have my trans fingers crossed, you can do it❤

[@glitchedoom]

I remember being vaguely anti-feminist in my late teens due to the online atheist movement at the time. Luckily I quickly grew out of it when I entered the real world. The main reason I am against religion is because I think it dehumanizes and hurts people. I can't imagine supporting a nonreligious cause that does the same thing.

[@Horkbane]

Some forms of feminism dehumanzie and hurt men. Last I checked, men are people. There are good reasons to be at least a bit skeptical of modern feminism.

[@eatfrenchtoast]

Yep. The best solution for anti woke is to turn off KZbin and interact with humans again.

[@shadw4701]

Modern feminism isn't true feminism

[@xaitat]

I definitely became anti feminist by applying the same reasoning I used to become atheist. I am curious about what experience of the real world made you change your mind. Almost everything I've read written by hardcore feminists I've seen entirely based on fallacies, unsupported sociological claims and a badly hidden hate towards men. I am genuinely curious because I don't really see it

[@fantuswitt9063]

For me it's the opposite. I was Feminist until I noticed how its mostly based on bad data and ironically traditional stereotypes about men and woman that paint all men as savages that have to reeducated by angelic woman or already reeducated man to be "humane". Pretty similar to victorian age christianity just more man hating.

[@weedlol]

The anti-woke grifter goes out to buy coffee, sees the barista is black and goes: "Man, why did they have to make it political?"

[@riseofdarkleela]

Yep, because there are two sexes, male and political. Two races, white and political. Two classes, rich and political. And so on…

[@shadw4701]

Did you ever actually try listening to an anti-woke argument? Nothing is wrong with a character's skin color, gender, sexuality etc. The problem is changing established characters to be something they're not. I could write better representation in my sleep

[@shadw4701]

Funny thing is I'm actually writing scifi stories which are inherently diversely casted because of the setting

[@mfsebcw]

​​@@shadw4701the anti changing fictional characters camp is not the same as the trans people are just delusional camp. The fact that both can fall under the umbrella of anti woke shows just how uselessly the right uses the term woke. The right doesnt have a working definition of woke to be opposed to, so they drop the label of woke on whatever they oppose. And im writing a fantasy story where the dragons reproduce via magic and thus have no sex, so are confused by humans getting into fights over gender.

[@weedlol]

​@@shadw4701There are valid examples, but the current arguments now have been essentialized to "game/movie bad because dei" rather than pointing to changing business models and economic circumstances. Concord is an example that comes to mind. Funnily enough, I am also writing a sci-fi story, which has an incredibly homogenous cast that all look identical, only differentiated by personality.

[@KhameCat]

I became an atheist at the height of the popularity of the four horsemen / new atheists and the first-ish wave of Atheist KZbin. Looking back, it’s easy to see how that pipeline could happen. I read The End of Faith early on and found it compelling at the time, but have over time strived to better understand empathy and diversity (the cruel irony being that my social circle was much more diverse at the time). Though I never considered myself a conservative, I’m glad to have gradually escaped the pipeline and continue to try to reach healthier ways of representing the atheist perspective. It does prove difficult thanks to some intense personal experiences, but I don’t encourage others to engage with the bitterness that plagues me. This kind of media is important, and I’m thankful that more recent generations of atheists have a broader spectrum of considerate media from which to learn. tl;dr: thanks for the video

[@magnuskarlkjerulf]

Anti-theist and religous pluralist here. I feel misrepresented by this video. It presents anti-theism as a dogmatic opposition towards due to believing all religions hold harmful views. Religion is inherently harmful not because any religion's claims are wrong, but because they teach you to accept claims on athority, consensus, anecdotes and other flawed mechanisms which leaves people vulnerable to further indoctrination, such as into cults. Anti-theism isn't about forcing beliefs on people. That's what religions do with the abusive practice of childhood indoctrination. Instead, it is to empower people to challange all dogma, including religion. I want to end by stating I hold no ill will toward religous people, any more than toward any other group I disagree with (such as conservatives) Edit: to clarify, I belive Orginized religion is inhearntly harmfull, not all forms of spirtuality. Differing views on other forms of spirtuality, like the existance of deistic gods, spirits, karma etc are a good thing even if I don't think spirtuality a particularly good idea but the cost/benifit ratio is much better.

[@Cool-Vest]

Not a monolith.

[@spirit4607]

💯

[@milesseawind]

👍

[@yvescote6898]

Agreed

[@immxmax]

I think there are two main branches of anti-theism; being against theism due to believing it to not be a beneficial belief, and being against theism because *It* is an *Enemy.* I do find it unfortunate that Drew and OceanKeltoi didn't address this, as it somewhat ironically is simplifying things to a rather binary view, though I don't get the impression either would intend to say that. I am a religious pluralist from a perspective of "I don't think it is _productive/beneficial_ to proselytize atheism," but I do think there is a core problem with theism, which you somewhat touched on; it presents an entity/entities as explanation for phenomena in a way that often is not consistent with reality, and offloading responsibility and security to said entities. Now, how much this will affect any given person can vary from extremely harmful, to basically negligible, and I don't see a point in trying to "convert" someone who is not being harmed by and/or causing harm due to such beliefs, but that doesn't make those beliefs neutral. But the bigger problem is how many religions have more harmful text in their canons, and so the adherents who have a net positive impact on the world do so _despite_ the text they _should_ be following (according to the religion.) And there is a mental toll from the cognitive dissonance that occurs - that's why I ended up moving from a Christian Fundemantlist, to a liberal Christian, to an atheist; while I believe was having a net-positive affect on the world as a liberal Christian, I could not forget the verses in the Bible which, if I followed them, would cause. A *lot* of harm. And not everyone deals with that cognitive dissonance by discarding the system which holds those harmful commands; they smother the empathy that challenged them. I think it's a very complex topic that only really has answers on an individual level, as the "right" approach depends on the person, but it needs to keep the _person_ in mind. A lot of our decision-making and interpretive process is influenced by the relationship - not how solid the argument is. And I do think Drew has a good focus on that. I love to listen to folks like Rationality Rules, DarkMatter, or MythVision go over the logical arguments _now_, but it was folks like Drew, Paulogia, and Mindshift that I first listened to because they focused more on the personal aspect.

[@CarlFredrik-uo1cu]

As long as GM Skeptic, Alex O'Connor/Cosmic Skeptic, and Rationality Rules don't end up as anti-woke/MAGA-lovers, then there's still hope. (That scenario would be so horrifying, sad, and discouraging.) edit: I wasn't expecting some many likes and comments. I did not know Alex was "anti-woke". I guess he's anti-Trump, and has some overlap with Drew and Stephen in politics/views. (Or am I being naive here?) I have a hard time buying the Alex believes/buys into the "The west was founded on Judeo-Christian values"-talking point.

[@forkthepork]

You don't have to be MAGA to be anti-woke.

[@jureambroz9557]

Add DarkMatter to that list

[@Gemini-Kedisi]

@@jureambroz9557 the goat

[@creativerealms]

It's the ones who came close to going down that hole and pulled themselves out that give me hope.

[@datbunneh3671]

But can we try to imagine a person who is both anti-woke and anti-maga? The world is not black&white you know.

[@Griffolion0]

As someone who is left leaning and despises anti-woke, Sam Harris is one of the people that got me to that place. His repeated excoriations of Trump and Republicans over the years really opened my eyes to just how rotten they all are. It's jarring to see him mentioned in a video like this as my experience with his work has had practically the opposite effect on me. Not saying Drew or anybody else is wrong here, just that my personal experience doesn't correlate.

[@JustADudeGamer]

Out of all the liberals who get called right wing, Sam Harris I'll defend more than anyone because he is not ideologically right wing although some of his beliefs are more right wing. He still very much takes the side of opposing the right wing unlike other so-called liberals.

[@eatfrenchtoast]

Sam got played by right wing Christian media on the topic of Islam. Accidentally swallowed their talking points.

[@eatfrenchtoast]

I like him too though btw

[@ollaitsrealgood]

@@eatfrenchtoast Did he though? Have you actually read his books? How many of his lectures have you listened to? Do not Islamic countries have problems with how they treat women and people like me (gay people)? What does the Houthi Flag say?

[@dshannon50]

There are many misconceptions about what anti-woke means. As the father of a trans kid whom I fully support, I find it very necessary to sharpen ones vocabulary because to many anti-woke means that you hate gay and trans people (and to many far right people it probably does). I too am a fan of Sam Harris and his books helped lead me to atheism after a similar upbringing to Drew's. I believe to Sam anti-woke mean anti-identity politics and the rejection of inter-sectionalism. The book The Identity Trap by Yascha Mounk is a good summary of the arguments for this position (which is very inclusive while rejecting many of the logical fallacies associated with the far left).

[@egeabali]

I really dont get why trans people are such a huge political thing. Like, cant we say you are free to believe and do whatever you want as long as it doesn't affect other people? Why is this such a big issue I really don't get.

[@paddleed6176]

Because that's not what the trans ideology is doing. What are you even talking about? They're not JUST doing things that only have an effect on themselves.

[@Terrajin444]

Well, people are being prosecuted for expressing trans-critical views under the accusation of hate speech. Not such an irrelevant issue, I would say.

[@Cool-Vest]

There's two major reasons. Number one is scapegoating. Scapegoating makes it very easy to gain political power. Think of Nazi Germany, and how the Holocaust was used to bribe the population. It was never about Jews. It was about vanquishing an enemy. The second reason is a combination between confusion and stubbornness. People don't like having their entire worldview shattered, so they try to rationalize it. And it just so happens that political hate is being pushed as the solution to rationalization.

[@angelikaskoroszyn8495]

All of the accusations against trans people frame it like something that definitely affect other people. "Trans athletes will always outcompete cis women, trans women will creep on cis women, the existence of trans people will brainwash your kids into believing that they're too trans". Those are the arguments used Obviously they all just hide the irrational phobia under (somewhat) rational arguments. After all many of those "issues" could be solved without discrimination

[@Slysheen]

Because they're a convenient scapegoat. It's easy to tap into people's fear and paranoia when something is "new" (to enough of them). Breaks established norms (whatever is "claimed" they are), and can be framed as an "attack" on something. It doesn't make sense because it isn't meant to. It's something politicians and pundents can point at when inconvenient questions like "why is the wealth gap so obscenely big?" And "why does a single medical event bankrupt us now?" are asked.

[@OceanKeltoi]

I appreciate the kind words Drew. I recall you saying you felt like Batman against Bane whenever we debated, and that stuck with me. 😂I'm absolutely looking forward to more content on Anti-theism and pathologizing the other. I'd seen the rhetoric but I hadn't quite put my finger on it in the way that you have here. Fantastic work! Also, Hello everyone! For those that might be interested in a little history of atheism, check out my video on the historical mentions of atheist Vikings, also known as the Godless Ones: kzbin.info/www/bejne/pn-0foGdbLGEpKM

[@themiddleones11]

@OceanKeltoi Are we expecting a new video soon? We've been waiting ❤

[@OceanKeltoi]

@@themiddleones11 This vid is a sign of my return 🥳 working on some new vids now.

[@sarah07290]

Can you provide a definition for imperialism the way you used it in this video? I must admit I got quite annoyed the more often you used it during the video, as I understand it to mean socioeconomic domination of a state and or nation by another in pursuit of political or economic goals. Whereas it appears you're using it to mean a religion or religious sect trying to gain the dominant position in, for lack of a better descriptor, the arena of religion/philosophy, which I've never seen anyone do.

[@planet1416]

@@OceanKeltoiawesome

[@MaryamMaqdisi]

Thank you for helping Drew become better lol ❤

[@Tyler-hk4wo]

I'm a leftist atheist and I've noticed a lot of the extreme right wing atheists seemed to experience a lot of religious trauma. I know that's just anecdotal, but I wish it was investigated more.

[@taylorlibby7642]

What I think should be investigated more is how the woke/progressive left has continually redefined for itself where the political center lies so that any deviation at all from what just a decade ago would have been the considered an extreme leftist position is now tarred as "far right" or "extreme right".

[@waltonsmith7210]

That background made me more leftist.

[@tamatebako_yt]

@@waltonsmith7210 Exactly. It had the opposite effect on me, too. I don't think religious trauma is a good predictor for political alignment, but I might be wrong.

[@Aquila9791]

I would argue that my religious trauma pushed me further to the left. People's experiences vary greatly.

[@NieroshaiTheSable]

It should be investigated more, mostly because some wires are being crossed. Religion usually isn't the motivator, it's the excuse. And when it is the motivator, you can look into the sect in question and see what the problem is. It's not because something fundamental to the concept of religion is at fault, because politics does it too.

[@wirelessbaguette8997]

A lot of comments questioning Sam Harris's inclusion in this discussion seem to have commented just from seeing the thumbnail. I encourage folks to watch the video. It becomes clear why he is being included (it's related to the things he has written in his book, and how those words were used by other authors. Sort of like a "pipeline.")

[@GeneticallyModifiedSkeptic]

I’m glad someone got this. I thought both the thumbnail and video were pretty clear that Sam is part of a pipeline, not on the right. He has said he agrees with Elon about what he calls “the woke mind virus,” but he’s more of an anti-woke lib, not right wing.

[@M3333]

Then why is he one of the four prominent people on the thumbnail of a video titled “anti-woke right”. I understand he may be a part of the pipeline but having him on the left side of that image and saying people should get it is just coping that you put him on a thumbnail image with Dawkins, Trump, and Elon with the anti woke right title. Dude is so fervently anti-Trump and anti-Elon and anti-MAGA it’s so misleading.

[@Corey.Leonard]

Describing sams work in his book and the misuse of his words by other authors as "sort of like a pipeline" is incredibly dumb.

[@Cobbbler]

@@GeneticallyModifiedSkeptic Having Sam in the thumbnail right above the title mentioning "Anti-Woke Right" is at best misleading. Then you feature him in the first part of the video (remember the title of the video) without clarifying that he isn't right wing. Even calling him part of the pipeline makes it seem like he's intentionally leading people towards people like Elon when it's very much the opposite. I honestly just kinda see this as a miss. Considering how many actually great examples you had to pick from, using Sam is pretty clickbait-y and even a little dishonest.

[@AlR-ol9gh]

@@GeneticallyModifiedSkepticIn this video you had the journalistic integrity of a Fox News reporter. You never explained how exactly Sam Harris is an Alt-right pipeline, and judging by the comments you can already tell many people disagree. Sam Harris is vehemently against Elon Musk. You literally set him up in the beginning of the video to look like he is ideologically connected to the people you mention after him. You ABSOLUTELY painted him as “red pilled”, intentionally or not.

[@alexanderjau]

I am a Christian and politically left. I believe that we should treat one another equally and with love. At the end of the day we are all humans born on this earth going through hardships. I know people use religion as a tool sometimes to help each other and often as a way to scorn others. It’s is not my job to judge others, my right and wrong isn’t important. I just want to spread as much love as possible.

[@MaryamMaqdisi]

Bless you ❤

[@FrozEnbyWolf150-b9t]

I find I have more in common with leftists and progressives regardless of religious faith or lack thereof, than I do with a wealthy conservative who happens to be an atheist.

[@weirdwilliam8500]

Whatever you believe, your character is obviously great.

[@mfsebcw]

Ah, so a true christian then. Thank you for showing us who you are by your love.

[@weirdwilliam8500]

@ The problem is that the Bible has verses that support any attitude. Hateful demagogues can point to clear scripture that aligns with their positions, too. But I agree that if you look at what Jesus himself apparently said, it’s almost impossible to be far right.

[@SquatchLord666]

I’ve long considered myself an anti-theist, but it’s more centered around being against any belief system that inherently dehumanizes certain groups, inherently calls for violence, inherently calls for authoritarian rule, or inherently scams people of their money. If a religion does zero harm, then I’m not against it. I’m sure there is a better word to describe this other than “anti-theist,” but I haven’t found it yet

[@milesfromnowhere1985]

I'm just a heathen who's a fan of Ocean here, so I'm a bit ill equipped to dictate language, but if you're accepting of belief systems that aren't harmful, I would consider that a more pluralist atheism than anti-theist.

[@SquatchLord666]

@ I’ll look more into that! Thank you

[@nordos]

@@milesfromnowhere1985 it's a bit hard for me to categorize - I think I am more anti-theistic. See, I dislike religions as a whole - faith not so much. Religion is, as I understand it, a collection of people sharing the same Faith. And that is where the issue begins. Due to Faith being inherently unprovable, there are no checks and balances. People, when gathered in groups, tend to create hierarchies - some püeople taking charge, etc. That enables easy abuse, by creating in- and out-groups, as well as power differentials. Inside that group, you will have trouble to escape the hierarchy - group pressure means that you would need a lot of energy and reason to consider leaving said group. So, the 'leaders' have some leeway in which they can abuse their power or shape their communities. That is why sects are so dangerous. Bigger religions can allow you to search for another group, that is still an 'in-group', but it can also make it even harder to escape - since now the Faith is ever-permeating around you. That said, I don't mind most of the smaller Faiths, when kept private. Since humans tend to create groups around basically anything (be it regarding nationality, towns, classes, age, sport, .... Name an aspect), and each of those groups have the same potential of becoming abusive (though Faith generally makes it easier to exploit), I don't really see the possibility nor even the need to stamp out any and all Faith. But I would still be in favor of restricting congegrations. Faith is to be kept private IMO - and if your Faith dies out because of it, would that not just confirm that your Faith is wrong? So, while you could argue that I have some kind of pluralisic view (as in, if your Faith is kept private [including not using it for any special exceptions] and you don't use it as a reason to harm others, I don't really mind), I do think myself mostly anti-theistic.

[@ewilano649]

The way some people are religiously advocating against the "woke mind virus" is ... interesting.

[@Cool-Vest]

All memes, all passed along

[@diskgrinder]

The words you are using are in the right place in that sentence. However, I’m struggling to understand your point.

[@petercollingwood522]

Really? But the virus itself? You fine with that I presume?

[@tonycorona8501]

@@Cool-Vest "Full of shit", that is a meme too.

[@zz-marked_helmet]

You didn't even mention people advocating for it even more religiously😂

[@LambentIchor]

I really find it funny when people use the 'not believing in things that have no supporting evidence' stance as far as gods, but then pivot to talking about 'free will'. Silverman's 'criminals are bad people who choose to do bad things' being an example.

[@MaryamMaqdisi]

Bless you Drew, you helped me unravel a lot of my religious feelings and while I don't think I'll ever stop believing in something I'm much happier outside of organized religion. Thank you for standing up for pluralism, diversity and human rights. Thank you.

[@dfs-comedy]

I am atheist and also trans. The hatred expressed against the trans community by some atheists is really heartbreaking. Of all people, you'd think atheists would be "live and let live." Trans people are not any sort of threat to atheists the way many on the religious right are. However, I also am unhappy with many on the left. By not speaking up against (for example) the fascist aspects of Islam and the threat of Islam to democracy, they have left a void that the right has eagerly filled to promote its own agenda. Everybody has dropped the ball here. And trans people are a convenient scapegoat, the way Jews were in Germany in the 20s and 30s.

[@FadedHeroFound]

It's also disappointing when some Communists are transphobic when most trans people are proletarians that are marginalised

[@Dankpuffin]

I’m an atheist and I’ve never had a reason to hate gays or trans people. As an atheist I recognize people have their own identities and that is their choice as long as it doesn’t affect other people’s right. Like in competitive competitions that has an advantage.

[@AbdiHassan-jq2ln]

It's ironic and sad how you don't see how you are engaging with the same logic as the transphobes but against muslims Racism and xenophobia against people from muslim majority countries has been normalized across the west with the far right routinely engaging in discrimination and violence against them especially in europe (Just last yr they were anti muslim progroms across England where far right rioters tried to burn an aslyum shelter) It seems like you just want to substitute one Scapegoat with another

[@bxp_bass]

>hatred >narrator's voice: they politely disagreed

[@bxp_bass]

@@FadedHeroFound lol the whole communism is hatred, why you're wondered? The common theme between all collectivist ideologies: woke left, communism, fascism, maoism - is to divide people into "good" and "bad" collectives and to hate those they called "bad" - bourguasie, white privileged heteronormative men, communists, and so on

[@ComradeSam_617]

Keep up the great work 🖤

[@baseupp12]

Wow two of the youtubers working together that most affected my religious journey, Ocean Keltoi is one of the people that brought me from Christianity to Polytheism, Genetically Mosified Skeptic is one of the people that brought me from Polytheism to Athiesm.

[@babydragon1486]

i am so thankful that im not im the us right now

[@littlebitofhope1489]

Go ahead. Rub it in. 😔

[@mz6367]

with Trump in office it's a true blessing

[@SoupRoutine]

It's getting scary here tbh. I know that I, as a white cisgender male, don't have much to fear. But I have friends and family who don't fall into that category, and I worry for them every day.

[@mz6367]

@ Are you straight? if you were gay it'd be different wouldn't it?

[@SoupRoutine]

@@mz6367 yes, I forgot to include that part. And yes, it would be different if I identified as anything other than straight. I would very much fear for myself if that were the case.

[@lupen_rein]

I absolutely do not find Ocean Keltoi's arguments convincing at all. "Anti-theist imperialism" is a strawman. Ocean Keltoi misconstrues anti-theism as meaning ethnonationalist anti-theism that always talks about "the West", but basically means white Christian Western countries. Anti-theism is not necessarily ethnonationalist, it doesn't necessarily talk about "the West" in such broad and essentialist terms. Just because there are atheists who absolutely essentialize cultures in such a broad way, that doesn't mean that anti-theism will always be like that. Ocean Keltoi basically essentializes anti-theism by conflating the different streams of anti-theism, nationalist and non-nationalist. This ironic, because his criticism is that anti-theists essentialize religious people, but he does the same thing. The problem isn't anti-theism, but the cultish identification with "the West", which happens to be majority-white and Christian and therefore they seem to overlap. But there is no need to slavishly identify with "the West" and all its cultural aspects, including nationalist beliefs, that is not a foundational anti-theist belief. So, I reject the essentializations of this video. Another point I reject is the conflagration of liberalism with "imperialism", like Islamists do. Just because you support a certain set of values and want to spread them does not make you an "imperialist". Imperialism means to force other people to succumb to your political will, anti-theism does not want that, it wants to CONVINCE people to change one's views, which is absolutely necessary for liberal values to spread. This definition of imperialism is so broad that promoting democracy and human rights would also be considered imperialism in such a scenario, as it attempts to impose values that people do not necessarily support and consider foreign. Such a worldview of opposition is a nationalist worldview that wants to "protect one's culture against foreign imposition of different values". So, Ocean Keltoi actually pursues a kind of worldview that sees any foreign influence as imperialist and threatening. He thereby aligns himself with isolationalist, right-wing religious conservatives who employ this view. But I am certain that he is not aware of this problem. So, in essence, this is an argument of a wolf in sheep's clothing. It attacks a strawman by using selective examples of those anti-theists who have a very ethnocentric, essentializing logic as being all antitheists and then he uses logic that is employed by conservative circles that find foreign influence dangerous to their regressive worldviews. Progressive thinking has to disrupt established values and it has to accept that it will be seen as such. Feminists were disrupters, LGBT people are seen as disrupters, Jewish emancipators were seen as such, the Civil Rights movement was seen as disruptors. The real standard is whether people use simplistic "our culture against their culture" ways of thinking or whether or not they are able to see people as individuals and cultures and systems as being able to shift, change and regress based on outside factors. Also, pluralism is misconstrued as well. Political pluralism is not designed to say that "all worldviews are equally valid" because they aren't and shouldn't be. Political pluralism essentially tries to enable equal treatment UNDER THE LAW, it is a procedural worldview that wants to keep the public square fair, equal and open to everyone. It does not in any way mean that the nazi worldview is just as valid as a secular Jewish worldview. Pluralism makes no statement about the validity of beliefs, it only makes a statement about keeping the RIGHT to have a personal worldview and being equally treated. Pluralism is neutral towards statements of beliefs, but that does not mean that it is ambivalent or doesn't care about them. Those who use pluralism to argue that we should have a postmodern laissez-faire attitude towards everything and everyone are mistaken because pluralism also entails the right to criticize(!) or mock other beliefs and to spread one's own. Anti-theism is not antipluralistic because it does not posit that people shouldn't have the RIGHT to believe untrue things. They use pluralism to spread their own ideas and that is also part of pluralism, the RIGHT to spread one's own arguments and beliefs. Laissez-faire "you do you" ideology doesn't lead you anywhere other than losing your moral standards and having a "meh" attitude towards harmful beliefs. So basically standing by while harmful beliefs are spread, as you don't want to argue for your stance, as that would be "imperialist" and "antipluralist".

[@spirit4607]

I totally agree with you, spreading truth and knowledge is not imperialism

[@angelikaskoroszyn8495]

I personally believe that enthnonationalism and anti-theism are seperate things. They can exist together but you can be an enthnonationalist and Christian at the same time. Or anti theist and anti borders Communism (at least in theory) was both against religion as well as against the idea of nation-states As for liberalism - in practice it is imperialistic. It's all about freedom of trade, people, and money. Within neo-liberal system the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. It's also true on state level. USA - the most powerful country in the world, can dictate the rules. What's more American corporations have generated enough wealth to influence politics of weaker countries. This is how Nestle is buying out water sources only to sell the water back to locals. Privatisation never causes issues for the poor, eh? And whenever a state wants to implement laws which go against the interests of the USA or its corpos then suddenly the goverment gets CIAed and things like banana republics are built

[@markevans8206]

@@angelikaskoroszyn8495I agree with your response in general, but I don’t think “communism was against religion,” Marx just made some comments about how the “owning class” uses religion, which is exactly what the GOP are doing. Some authoritarians have been against religious freedom and have tried to substitute the state in its place.

[@ray_glaze]

Definition of woke: "any person, policy, or idea that is more tolerant than you are."

[@spirit4607]

Like intolerance of criticism of !slam right?

[@ray_glaze]

@@spirit4607 I wouldn't know. I suspect you don't want a serious answer, but I'll give you one anyway. My tolerance of the criticism would depend on the nature of the criticism. If it is evidence-based and well-reasoned, I would consider it. Perhaps the author has a different lived experience that I can learn something from. Knee-jerk prejudice has little to teach me. I am less eager to spend the energy it takes to understand it. Either way you have to listen to the argument. I apply the same reasoning to all viewpoints, including criticism of the traditions I grew up in. I realized that nuanced answers and KZbin comments are not a good fit, so I will leave it at that.

[@JamesP7]

This is not the meaning. If KZbin lets me make this comment, I will say it is moreso tied to the practice of the Equity Fallacy and Neo-Marxism practices based on those incorrect beliefs. There’s a Libertarian creator I like named MentisWave who has better explained this.

[@ray_glaze]

@@JamesP7 I was being purposely trite, in the fine tradition of KZbin comments. I suspect that you and I have substantive differences. It might take a long time to come to common understanding.

[@CorynNoble]

Regarding the phrase "woke mind virus" this comes across to me as what Robert Jay Lifton called a "thought-terminating cliche" - don't argue a specific point with which you disagree, just dismiss it as a "virus" so you no longer have to think about it.

[@aleksabanjevic8316]

"wow, your so brainwashed" "well actually my views in detail are-" "OMG BRO, QUIT YAPPIN, TLDR" I had this interaction over 20 times in the past week, some of my coments aren't even longer than 5 sentences. It's actually becoming rather disturbing how averse to longer discussions some people are. I'm not calling that now a virus lmao, that has always been the case, at best people are just more confident about exclaiming distinction with longer form elaboration of one's views. I just find it a tad disturbing how common it actually is for people to not want to engage in longer form discussions. How does one expect to address nuances, context, elaboration and addressing of any hypothetical issues in an argument without using a minimum of a few sentences?

[@timothyhoft]

As a former right-wing conservative, young earth creationist, heavily indoctrinated Lutheran, I believe it is entirely appropriate to describe religious beliefs as a mind virus.

[@PrincessOzaline]

See the issue is you're speaking from a very toxic form of relgious upbringing, my father tried to indoctrinate me into Christian antisemitism, but not all religous people are like that. I'm still religous in a different way, but my understanding of history comes from history.

[@amiramaz]

you can say very similar things to non religious beliefs such as na*ism, communism, woke or anti woke ideologues. Its always about rational thinking and openmindness to change your mind once proven wrong.

[@aetherkid]

​@@PrincessOzalinereligion is evil :)

[@MaryamMaqdisi]

I've been harmed and abused a lot as a Catholic growing up and I'm now a pagan, but I believe there's nuance missing here. Lots of religious folks do amazing stuff, like for example community building, volunteering, help with addictions, etc. I agree that religion is probably mostly negative, but painting it all with one brush is oversimplifying it too much and it leads to rhetoric that harms religious folks. My mother in law is a Muslim and she's extremely supportive of me being trans, for example. If I let my valid fears of religion take over me I'd have never been open to meeting her, and that's sad. The biggest victims of religion are religious people, and if we want to help them we need to be kind and empathetic while debating the topics.

[@daviddziuk-uz8ps]

I had the opposite experience being a Lutheran particularly because I was a member of the moderate ALC. However my experience with charismatic Evangelical fundamentalism shows that is radical as any religious political philosophy. I will take a moderate of any system of thought over a rigid dogmatist have any kind.

[@emilysarchive42]

I absolutely do have a contrarian streak and I think you’re onto something here

[@Cool-Vest]

Contrarian streak, huh. Ever thought of entering politics? That could be your chance to stick it to The Man. Not the only way, mind you. I'm just trying to inspire people to get into their government to force out the rather dogmatic approaches used across the board now.

[@ErnestSamuels-u4q]

Doesn't mean you're necessarily wrong though, so be careful of becoming a contrarian opposed to your own contrarianism. Double bind, eh?

[@anniesearle6181]

People in these comments seem to be deliberately missing the point of how thinking an entire population of people are less intelligent /more backwards than them is literally inherently right wing and based in white supremacy. This video isn't saying all atheists are right wing but how that idea of exceptionalism is really not that far away from alt-right beliefs. You don't have to agree with religion or spirituality but you have to interrogate that belief

[@asyetundetermined]

Abhorring the abhorrent is not the equivalent to being abhorrent. See paradox of tolerance/middle ground fallacy.

[@wattihrvolt-pn3pf]

Its a bit funny how OceanKeltoi generalizes the worst and most extreme views of anti theism over the whole.

[@matthewgagnon9426]

That sort of thing is why I'm not a big fan of him.

[@castoramanwab2723]

Yeah it bothered me too

[@moatasemkassab4517]

Examples?

[@Ventus_the_Heathen]

How?

[@_Galaxymuffin_]

This is just what antitheism means, it is an extremist position and is literally definitionally the opposite position from pluralism, if you disagree with his assessment you are simply not an anti-theist full stop.

[@Musicrafter12]

Definitely pretty rich of someone to whine "why does all the bullying go one way" when he's made an entire career out of calling religious people delusional to their faces.

[@archivistelly]

Great video! I'm here from Ocean's channel, but I'll definitely be checking out some of your other stuff. I appreciate the distinction between organizations that are actually active and organizations that are just online.

[@n337speak]

This really answered some questions I've been grappling with recently. Thanks to both of you. Glad to see Ocean again especially, grateful for your voices in these times

[@brandonkennedy4160]

Since finding atheism, and unfortunately red pill atheism, I’ve been wondering about this topic for a while, and what motivates many atheists to go right leaning.

[@lukemackenzie9073]

It’s not so much they go right leaning, it’s more they will have a “right wing” opinions on a few topics. Sam Harris endorsed Kamala, dislikes Elon Musk, but will be “right wing” on Islam and same with Dawkins on Transgender people. Apart from a few exceptions they are for the most part left wing.

[@eatfrenchtoast]

Women problems. Peer pressure. Media bubble.

[@brandonkennedy4160]

@@lukemackenzie9073 that’s an interesting thought. I admit, that isn’t quite what I’ve seen a lot from red pill atheist online, but it’s genuinely hard to tell the difference between them and trolls most of the time. And I also know that’s just my own personal experience.

[@DrMakak]

@@lukemackenzie9073 Wouldn't "right wing on islam" just be... being an islamist? As in anti-feminist, anti-lgbt, anti-abortion, anti-degeneracy, theocratic authoritarian?

[@mfsebcw]

i think it's that freedom is what motivated their atheism. freedom from the dictates of religion. and they see political correctness as a form of restricting that freedom. they talk of compelled speech when it comes to transgender people. they don't seem to accept that a pronoun is not owned by the person speaking it, but the person it is spoken to.

[@haijj]

Another point to add. I started out religious due to my household. Once I realized I was agnostic. It took a few years for me to realize that I hated gays solely because of the church. I didn’t believe in climate change solely because of the church. The person who helped me transition away from those beliefs after I became agnostic was my girlfriend at the time. Without her. I very well may still be homophobic/climate denying etc

[@aviendha1154]

It’s hilarious as a trans person hearing that anyone thinks trans acceptance is the norm. Even in spaces where knowledge of trans people is taught and expected transphobia is super normal. A lot of allies don’t even understand what being an ally means.

[@JCavSD]

We all tend to view the world from the lens of their own beliefs and temperament, and it isn't always a good thing. To many people, myself included, trans acceptance is our personal norm...but if I step two feet out of our heads we find that it isn't for others.

[@GabeHowardd]

Any group that values critical thinking will avert delusion, no matter if it's in a god or if it's someone telling people they feel like a woman when they are a man. Transfolks and religious people are all the same.

[@ArtyFartyBart]

To anyone on the JREF forums 10 years ago, this wasn't a surprise

[@MarmaladeINFP]

I used to visit there. But never wanted to stick around much.

[@FrozEnbyWolf150-b9t]

I was, right around the time they changed to the ISF. I ran into quite a few reactionary atheists who acted exactly like this, thinking their stance against religion made them automatically correct about all scientific topics and social issues. They assumed being contrarian made them rational. On the other hand, there were also a lot of old school skeptics like myself who were allies to marginalized groups and politically progressive. Some of them even had to talk sense into me about my own beliefs at the time. I left the forum more to focus on my work. Though my clashes with reactionary atheists also did play a role in my decision.

[@_aconite_cj_]

I'm very sleepy after a hard day, gonna sleep listening to this, and then re-watch this during breakfast tomorrow xD. Thanks Drew !! Number 1 !!!

[@riseofdarkleela]

Hope you wake up refreshed…

[@lucideandre]

I mean…ideas certainly are responsible for material realities. That’s what a social construct is. Gender, race, money, the way we count time. Those are all socially constructed. If everyone were to stop believing in the value of money, and refused to accept it for trade, it ceases to exist as such

[@littlebitofhope1489]

Sort of. But money is a secondary reinforcer, and the primary reinforcers behind it still exist. All money really does is make it so you don't have to carry trade goods around with you.

[@rossstewart9475]

@@littlebitofhope1489 Indeed and it depends on how we're defining "money", because it's not quite the same thing as currency and is capable of existing with no direct attachment to, say, something with scarcity or the GDP of a nation-state. It's one of those social constructs that if we abandon will reinvent itself in a fashion, as is time - but less so Gender, Race, Citizenship of the nation, etc. One is rooted in our brain's predeliction for pattern matching, whilst the other is borne of convenience.

[@littlebitofhope1489]

@@rossstewart9475 Name one currency or "money" that is not tied to something real.

[@rossstewart9475]

@ Bitcoin immediately jumps to mind; The myriad meme coins are probably even more salient examples, and NFTs would also fall adjacent: In each case those using them simply agree that the blockchain used is authorative, and provides the "scarcity" that allows us to build economic systems around them.

[@feliperamedeiros]

@@littlebitofhope1489 Have you heard of speculative market?

[@LettaLeeJoy]

I've never been thud early on a GMS video!😁 Thanks for everything you do, Drew ❤️✌️

[@Turalcar]

14:03 This reminds me of the scene is Chernobyl where an old man was proclaiming his faith in the state using overtly religious language. While dramatized, it reflects pretty well how Soviet anti-theism works well with totalitarian ideology.

[@DentArthurDent68]

I have to watch Chernobyl again, powerful stuff.

[@Pamonja]

This coment section gave me a flashback from when Vaush and Ocean debated Anti-theism.

[@milesfromnowhere1985]

@@Pamonja what I wouldn't give to be a fly on the wall while some of these commenters watched it.

[@bakugokatsuki2302]

I dont really agree with Ocean, my position as an anti-thiest isnt that religion is all bad, its that we dont need religion to achieve the same good, whereas with religion you CAN achieve and “justify” bad things. I posit that human secularism is inherently a better moral system, and should be the default rather than a god-belief and the supposed god’s will, which religion in all, except individual cases, argues is true morality.

[@_Galaxymuffin_]

Any political ideology or belief in general CAN achieve and justify bad things, this is not at all a problem exclusive to religion, going out of your way to single out religion is just cope and bigotry.

[@NieroshaiTheSable]

You're redefining antitheism in order to protect its innocence. You're saying things many religious people also believe, and they're not antitheists. Wouldn't that make you an atheistic pluralist, not an antitheist? Unless your kind words are lies?

[@nordos]

@@NieroshaiTheSable the issue is, as many have pointed out, that the definition of anti-theistic is a bit ... undefined. There really isn't any other word you can easily describe yourself with, if you are categorically against organized religion. That doesn't necessarily mean that you are against religion or Faith period. So, I would profess that a pluralistic anti-theist is not a contradiction, but rather a more specified sybtype (similar to agnostic/gnotic atheist defining the belief of if there could or could not be any kind of god)

[@BS-rm1hv]

I think you're missing the main aspect which drives atheists to right wing ideology: Western exceptionalism, which has always been intertwined with new atheist discourse. New atheists have always been very neoconservative imperialists and generally believed that this righteous and modern civilization was clashing with a barbarian one. One civilization was based upon objective moral principles and another on backward delusions. Right-wing atheists are to this day moral absolutist capitalists. I include people like Alex O'Connor in that category.

[@thelakeman2538]

Got to the core, as a non-western atheist their obsession with mostly anglosphere philosophy baffles me, like even within western philosophy, these people seem to exclusively rely on english utilitarians, empiricists and rationalists (except for big name enlightenment thinkers like Descartes or Kant) to base their core "universal" beliefs upon. God forbid they actually learn what people from other places in Europe wrote about, beyond looking down upon it as "continental philosophy" because the conversation had moved way past them in like the previous century.

[@cuauhtez]

⁠​⁠@@thelakeman2538 Good point, but with regard to Westerners this is largely explained by the fact that these philosophers just have a more vivid and consistent presence in their education. I mean it’s no surprise if a the most popular poet in France is French, right? I think we too quickly have this idea that the internet is able to break culture barriers when it’s still a pretty segregated space, by language if nothing else. English-language and Anglosphere is more easily accessed because it literally makes up the majority of the internets cultural cache. I think people everywhere should be more aware of philosophies outside their culture but I don’t think it’s fair to set “westerners” up as needing to be more worldly without recognizing that we all still live in diverse enclaves.

[@ErnestSamuels-u4q]

The West is the best, baby! ✌🤑✌

[@rocksandsocks7]

This is right on the money. Privileged old British guys grew up under the misimpression that being trans was a backwards thing that mostly existed in Thailand. And now that it is visible in their own country they are salty.

[@MaidofBoats]

​@@thelakeman2538And hell would freeze over if any of them bothered to take non-European philosophers seriously. "The West" didn't and doesn't have a monopoly on philosophy. I'm sick and tired of hearing stuff about how "the West" abolished slavery... when non-Western cultures had banned the practice centuries before the Atlantic slave trade even started.

[@Cheatcoe]

Did you call Elon musk Himmler? That is so hilarious

[@clintonsmith8215]

Thank you for talking about this.

[@JohnathanFallSeasonGuy]

I genuinely don’t understand the atheist to anti woke pipeline, atheism is the very thing that stoped me from falling down the anti woke rabbit hole. :/

[@aaronsmith1474]

I find that this frequently happens when people still hold beliefs that they've come to via emotion rather than reasoning. Views that the are so emotionally tied to that they have to contort themselves into a pretzel to fit into an atheistic framework. That's why a lot of these atheist to alt-right people are so easy to debunk.

[@wesleywilson5984]

I don't think anti-theism and pluralism are contradictory. I am anti-theist in the sense that I think religion is generally a force for bad in the world, and that it should be treated similarly to how we treat flat-earth beliefs or other types of mis/disinformation. I don't agree with the idea of "marginalizing" religious people, but I do agree that the beliefs should not be considered as valid arguments, especially for political views, like opposition to gay marriage. And I think it is a good thing that the rates of religion are declining. However, so long as religion exists, I am a pluralist in the sense that, of course, I want people to coexist and live peaceful lives together. I would never want any harm to befall someone for their views or lack thereof. Even if a day comes when religious beliefs are seen as similar to fringe conspiracy theories, they would obviously still be entitled to decent treatment, even if the beliefs do not have that same respect.

[@PierpaoloBuzza]

I think it's hard to discuss this without a definition of "woke", because the definitions vary greatly based on who you ask.

[@paddleed6176]

Obsession with identity, whether it's "gender identity" or "racial identity"; where everything stands below the self-identified identities and where everything is put on an intersectional ladder. Schooling, the legal system and everything else both legally and informally should take this intersectionality into account, people should be judged better if they're "lower on the intersectional ladder" and worse if they're "higher up on the intersectional ladder". It has an obsession with power and that relates to the intersectionality. Everything is about power so if some group does better than another, that must mean they're discriminating and oppressing the other, it ignores all evidence of both randomness, genetics and cultures. It cancels people all the time, and promotes a culture where it's suddenly okay to cancel everyone for everything. Just like your slag friends here. It's effectively just rebranded socialism that obsesses more with identity than with class, and hence the white man is the evil man that "invented slavery" (completely delusional take). Wokeness IS a religion and left-wing atheists are blindly following it. It's disgusting.

[@taylorlibby7642]

What does it mean to you?

[@taylorlibby7642]

​@@paddleed6176It's just thinly disguised Marxism.

[@GeneticallyModifiedSkeptic]

After reading the comments here, I regret that I didn’t address what “woke” means. Its original meaning among mostly black Americans was clear cut. But now it’s a buzzword that acts as a catch-all for “liberal/left stuff I don’t like.” Using it unironically is a marker of an unserious person imo.

[@anonymous-zs9rn]

I think woke, at this point, doesn't have and can't have a concrete, all inclusive definition. I think that's on purpose, because politicians and ideologues can call anything they need to vilify woke, and immediately have a large group of rage fueled followers who'll hate "the woke", no matted what it is and without thinking if it is a bad thing or not. Having a way to instantly gain support for whatever dangerous thing you want to do, and vilify anyone who speaks against it, is way too convenient to lose by giving "woke" a concrete definition.

[@Bc232klm]

I'm definitely antitheist. I'm against pretending that wrong things are true for bad reasons. I won't let a mythological cult member define my beliefs lmao

[@petrfedor1851]

This is level of activly refuse to comprehand ides that would make Kent Hovind proud

[@Tamamo-no-Bae]

@@petrfedor1851 The right to non-participation is precisely what people like Hovind is against.

[@spencerduncan2252]

11:06 "Himmler says" based lmao

[@jbill190]

Yes, this one made me actually lol

[@ivanl.6797]

I believe in religion pluralism. But I still think we need to get rid of a lot about religion. Anti-theism and pluralism isn't incompatible: I think there are several good things that religion can bring us, but several of those things can do without religion. Don't whitewash the bible, replace it.

[@nicholasfiala6205]

Hearing about these books, I think I now understand why some folks think that there is a war on faith/religion.

[@KaiHenningsen]

I don't know - I see myself as an anti-theist who believes in pluralism. That is, I do think religions are bad, but I also think that it is pointless to try to force people out of religion. That leads to more harm than good. *As long as they do no harm,* let them believe what they want, even if it's bad. Also, that way, there's more energy for fighting more important battles. Also, once people start talking about "Western civilization", especially about people wanting to destroy it, I tend to choose someone else to listen to. As far as religion and the law, my position is that there should be no religious exemptions in law. If we're willing to allow someone different treatment when they proclaim a religion, we should be willing to do the same if they don't proclaim a religion - or we shouldn't be willing either way. Both or none, not this weird half-and-half thing. Rules should not depend on beliefs.

[@Cool-Vest]

I'm kind of the same. Or rather, my take is that religion should not be forcibly ended, and shall rather be phased out over time through the promotion of superior alternatives: re-constructing the upsides while eliminating the downsides and net-neutrals

[@zacharynovak2180]

The only religious exceptions I think should be allowed are some native american traditions based on religion. Such as letting them use bald eagle feathers for religious and cultural uses.

[@Cool-Vest]

@@zacharynovak2180 I feel like that's a bit of favoritism. Frankly, I don't think religious exceptions are all that disruptive most of the time. If it gets to be supremely problematic, then perhaps a line can be drawn. I'm being vague because I don't exactly have a lot of experience with the topic.

[@TikoVerhelst]

@@zacharynovak2180 I think that this stuff is much easier solved by just democracy. As in, like, just talking on a local level and seeing what works. Same with christians. Like, you can have some broad ideas about laïcité. But like in France, you can still accept christianity is part of your culture and heritage. I really believe, I'm not a die-hard communist but I think they also really believe, in just local solutions to local problems. That's my problem with anti-theists. They completely ignore how much polorasation can be solved by just looking for local compromises. Often, it's pretty easy to solve things locally. Because people are willing to find something that kinda works for both parties and just move on with life.

[@drachenfeIs]

All ignorance is harmful

[@chocopuddingcup83]

I don't consider myself woke, and I also don't consider myself anti-woke. I'm gay and happily identify as a liberal democrat, and I place myself firmly in the center left. I also consider myself an anti-theist and I most certainly do not ally myself with Christian nationalism. I see Theocracy/Christian nationalism as being far, far more damaging to society than any extreme-left ideology. I'm disgusted by how both sides of these issues are acting, and I'm even more disgusted by how much further this could possibly escalate. I'm stuck in the middle middle.

[@commandergs1390]

What do you mean “both sides”? Surely you don’t have equal amounts of problems with sending immigrants to Guantanamo Bay (far right) and letting people be trans (far left)

[@jasonGamesMaster]

Ocean-Keltoi! Good times! Love the collab.

[@hieronymusbinch9526]

Fantastic collab guys.

[@iilaunch]

Hey there, long-time viewer from Europe here. I can't really speak for Americans, but I can a bit about the position of many secular people in Europe such as myself about the "anti-woke". In my country for example (France), while "woke" values (LGBTQ+ rights, abortion, etc) are mostly pushed forward by left-wing, very few in the right wing are actually fighting on some of the more "consensual" topics. For example, I can't remember hearing a single member of the right (and even far right tbh) speaking of removing same-sex marriage, none would remove abortion either (however some would like to shorten the time allocated to do so), and the very few who are pushing for Christianity to be put in public schools are mocked by almost all, even right-leaning persons. On Trans issues it's more complicated, most of the heat is around children, and I won't talk too much about it. I think it's important to place this context first to say why the need for an active push here isn't the same as in the US. But, I can say that, here, there is a certain anger growing in most of the population regarding the left for its alliance with Islamist radicals. As a reminder, France has been constantly attacked by Islamist terrorists for years in horrible attacks. Yet, most people in the left here either try to switch focus, or even flat out deny the issue there is here with a growing part of the population (for example, a professor got as*assin*ted for showing drawings, and over 30% of young muslims in the country say they "understand" the motives of the k*ll*r). When you add the "queer for palestine" shit that is going on recently, plus multiple m*rd*r and R*pe committed and other hate crimes committed in all of Europe, the left has begun to feel quite bad. (I've considered myself to the left all my life, but recently, I've refused to vote for multiple election and even voted against the left at the latest european elections, and I know many who do so as well.) So, I think that most of the "anti-LGBT" in Europe is mostly born from this hypocrisy of the left the refuses to take note of the situation in Europe, hence the rise of far-right politics in all the continent.

[@mz6367]

you're incorrect, many rightwingers in Europe oppose same-sex marriages

[@mz6367]

some gays were attacked in France by right-wing supporters and he even said they'd be able to do it again once the far-right government wins, that was before the result of the parlimantal election

[@weirdwilliam8500]

Yes, it's hard for some leftists, because the left has a strong tradition of anti-racism, and some of us apparently can't accept that ethnic minorities with awful, toxic ideas don't need to have their ideas protected as if those ideas are also part of their racial identity. The ongoing Israeli war crimes don't help, since they only add sympathy for Muslims. Still, a lot of Muslims have ideas and practices that simply shouldn't be tolerated.

[@willguggn2]

"Understand" and "condone" are two different things. The rest you wrote just shows how influential right wing media is, how it dictates public discourse.

[@diskgrinder]

Yet LGBTQ+ has nothing to do with immigration. Might as well say Liverpool FC supporters against Palestinian genocide means Liverpool FC supporters are woke. The subgroup is identified by the qualification of the group and is therefore not a quality of the group.

[@HrothgarsOwn]

Here as a fan of both yours and Ocean's videos! Well put together, I enjoyed this as much as one can enjoy learning about such topics 😅

[@PhoenixTwoFiftySix]

I suppose religion is closer to a dna mutation than it is to a "mind virus" it can be helpful, surprising, and extraordinary, but it can also be destructive, frightening, or without worth.

[@Duskbound]

That's an apt description

[@weirdwilliam8500]

It's based on a cognitive bias that has been present in humans forever. When our tree-dwelling mammalian ancestors saw agency in every rustle of crass and creak of a tree, it massively helped them survive and reproduce because they were on alert for predators or even fleeing in fear, whether or not anything was actually there. This psychological trait was such a survival advantage that it was conserved despite it not accurately representing reality. Religion coopts this flaw in our brains, and elaborates on the intuition of agency that we have. That became a beneficial practice for small tribal communities, for group cohesion via shared practices and beliefs, and it all took off from there.

[@CMA418]

On trans issues: It’s crazy to me how there are so few people willing to say something to the effect of, “these are complex issues. To reactively and dogmatically jump to any conclusions seems unwise. More research needs to be done.”

[@SpaveFrostKing]

That approach may be good in theory, but it has a lot of problems in reality. The biggest is that it implicitly supports the anti-trans worldview - let's just keep things as they are (where trans people have minimal rights and acceptance) until we can completely prove that supporting them is a good idea. Of course, for those on the right that'll never happen. No study is perfect and you can always find a reason to ignore it's conclusions (especially if you're willing to say that the researchers themselves are woke and therefore biased). It also ignores the fact that a lot of research has already been done, and it overwhelmingly supports accepting trans people. Even if you genuinely believe that there isn't enough research into trans issues yet, there's still the question of what do we do with current trans people? Force them to stay in the closet? Also, like, almost all trans people are in favor of more research into trans issues. It's the right wing that opposes it.

[@skyinou]

Agreed. More people should point out how, by trying to dumb it down so much, trump signed an executive order that makes everyone women.

[@NieroshaiTheSable]

When is it enough? Why do people who doubt the science we have on gender pretty much universally either support our persecution or turn a blind eye to it?

[@ErnestSamuels-u4q]

This is the truth

[@adamusprime403]

7:55 as someone who suffers with actual cognitive illnesses, the logic involved in associating the religious as ill deeply offends me. It indirectly asserts a moral or social value to mental health in a way that asserts people like myself are bad, and are a scapegoat for problematic/reactionary stances.

[@Greengreengr583]

You’re doing an amazing thing by using your platform to wake people up to reality and empathy, thank you for doing this

[@Starghost1999]

We stand for all human rights. Unlike you who think you stand in judgment of humans.

[@rainbowkrampus]

Eh, the bit about anti-theism was fairly reductive. It presents an assumption that all anti-theism subscribes to a similar set of prescriptions and thus necessarily falls into a framework of imperialism. Which, I realize you guys are friends, but I gotta say that reductive reasoning has been a staple of Keltoi's since as long as I've been aware of him and so I'm not surprised to find more of that on display here. Anti-theism and pluralism are not mutually exclusive. You know what really solid anti-theist praxis looks like? This. This channel, the discussion people are having in the comments, these things kill religion. It's not for nothing that there was a big spike in people leaving christianity during the height of the pandemic. People were at home, away from the reinforcing social structures of religion. They had time to mess around on the internet. And they found channels like this one and realized they didn't actually have good reason to believe what they believed. I've talked to dozens of people who found themselves in that exact position. It's very effective. Maybe we should have more pandemics? I kid (looks warily at H5N1). You can believe that religion is necessarily harmful and still respect individual liberty and still work towards an "end" to religion. I put "end" in quotes here in recognition that there may never be a society which completely does away with religion due to the quirks of our cognition (imposing agency on material phenomena etc. etc.) It's not imperialism to discuss and challenge ideas. Improving the material conditions of people and giving them access to the wide range of ideas and facts about the world has a propensity for moving them towards finding less satisfaction in religion. That's what anti-theism means to me. If that's imperialism, then give me a boat and flag and a big funny mustache and call me an imperialist then.

[@spirit4607]

He totally misrepresented anti theist in this video

[@robertkelleher1850]

Thank you. I had a similar sense, and commented as much. I couldn't exactly put my finger on what it was exactly, but my fallacy alarm bells were ringing.

[@NieroshaiTheSable]

So many people down here are trying to rehabilitate antitheism as just edgy pluralism. That's not accurate. Antitheism opposes the existence of theism.

[@Jedi_Vigilante]

As somebody who considers themselves an anti-theist, I think the flaw in the one gentleman's argument (Ocean Keltoi I believe) about anti-theism is that it too also generalizes such people. In the same way that not all atheists got there through a well-reasoned thought process, not all anti-theists seek the same things nor got there the same way. Personally, I am an anti-theist because I do not feel that religions should have the kind of power that they do and the way most are structured, they will always seek such power. For example, the vast majority of religions have a self-propagation directive within, the commandment to "spread the word" as it were. Removing that directive would fundamentally alter the religion itself as it is the people within the religion that make it what it is. Cease to acquire certain people, and the religion ceases to be what it is (or even ceases to be altogether). But how can others (be they religious or non-religious) peacefully coexist with such a group that is always attempting to spread? At some point, the religion will attempt to spread by extreme measures as dictated by their supreme being or belief in their own moral high ground. Such a position is already incompatible with pluralism, regardless of how accepting we behave towards it. Likewise, the way that religious institutions continually make power grabs at legal institutions to implement their own moral code onto everybody, regardless of personal beliefs represents this problem. Even the more "tolerant" religions like Buddhism have done this. How can we claim to desire pluralism while such a blatant threat to it spreads largely unopposed? I have no problem with individuals being theistic. I have no problem with groups of theists banding together to worship together, support each other, so on and so forth. The problem comes when those groups attempt to exert their power over others... and EVERY religion in recorded human history has attempted to do this. It seems the way of things that if a group has the potential to exert power, at some point a person will take charge of it that WILL exert power. It is true of governments, it is true of companies, it is true of religions. The things is, governments are largely necessary, even companies are somewhat necessary. Religions aren't.

[@NieroshaiTheSable]

You're stretching the bounds of what antitheism means. Most religions do NOT have a propagation mandate. I can think of three: Christianity, Islam, and Scientology. Most religions don't care, or are content for people to have multiple belief systems. You don't think religions should hold political power? Me too! But that's pluralism. It's true that two of those religions are the world's largest. The solution isn't getting rid of them. The solution is reforming them. It sounds like you'd agree, which is why I'm saying it's the misapplication of labels that makes you disagree with Ocean, not the actual fact of the matter. Either you're actually a pluralist, not an antitheist, or you're lying.

[@Jedi_Vigilante]

@@NieroshaiTheSable All three of the religions you named definitely have a propagation mandate. Two of them (Christianity, Islam) have it in their holy book (not sure about Scientology, haven't read it). Even if they didn't, the doctrinal practices of those religions enforce an expansionist mandate upon their followers. That mandate is just more easily justified when it is also in their holy book. Commands to proselytize, to save other's souls, to spread the word, those are fairly common amongst both Christianity and Islam. Scientology (from what I can find) actually relies upon literal fronts (businesses masquerading as something else) to lure people in. Why would they do that unless in an effort to propagate the religion? Beyond that, they all also encourage the indoctrination of one's own children into their religion, which is also a means of propagating the religion. Shoot, Catholicism (the largest Christian denomination) even has many practices that encourage sexual propagation (go forth and multiply being applied to all humans, no contraception, etc.), knowing that those practices will also propagate the religion itself. The reason I am against religion is because it is in its very nature to attempt to hold power, political and otherwise, over others. You can't "reform" that out of them. They are too large and too powerful already. They will not give up the power they already have, over governments, over people. Even if a reform movement were to sweep through them, it is only a matter of time until one of those movements is led by a person who craves to utilize that power over others themselves, and the cycle begins again. If we had no need for governments, I would hold the same position on them. Their very nature invited corruption and mis-utilization of power. Unfortunately, we do (at least to some degree) need governments. They are a "necessary evil" to protect many of us from greater evils. We DON'T need religions, to any degree. And so I am against religions existing. I am not going to FORCE people to abandon religion, as that is just stupid. Religions thrive under persecution. I would, however, not shed a tear if all religion disappeared over night. There are plenty of actual things we should be pluralistic about: sexuality, gender, ethnicities, nationalities, movie preferences, etc. Allowing an organization that is itself a threat to pluralism to exist isn't being pluralistic, it is being foolish... and all religious organizations are a threat to pluralism.

[@Isaksson9915]

Well, I am not a Murican, so I can not speak to your particular style of politics. I can however say that I am an atheist. "what kind if atheist you ask?" Answer: Yes. That said, when it comes to politics I only care for the topic, not the party lobbying for the topic at hand. In most cases I am viewed as an "anti woke" but fully support peoples equal rights which makes me a leftist in most Murican eyes. I am for legalization of some drugs, and that makes me a flum, but I am against the miss use of drugs and alcohol in general that makes me a an absolutist in some eyes. People just love to put labels on others. People who do not think like me is just plain ignorant regardless of religion, skin tone or place of birth in my opinion, but I do not go labeling them lefties nor right wing unless they them self identify them selves as such to me and I usually do not go to argue with ignoranuses, but i can discuss things sometimes. Being ignorant is not being stupid however, as ignorance can be cured. Stupidity not. I never bother with stupid. (some things might be lost in translation, if so, I do not really care. My point should be obvious.)

[@MaryamMaqdisi]

Why anti-woke exactly? Are you aware that most anti-woke rhetoric is simply strawmanning leftist critique?

[@fantuswitt9063]

@@MaryamMaqdisi Just as woke people straw man anti woke critique? Sorry but that's not a convincing argument.

[@Isaksson9915]

@MaryamMaqdisi "Why anti woke?" you ask. You have to ask them. Why would I even care why someone views me as anti woke? I do not bother to ask. People do call me that on occasion however, and that is usually the end of my engagement with said folk. Same goes for people who call me woke.

[@Merinis]

When i broke out of christianity, i brought a lot of christian baggage out of it with me. It wasn't until, almost a decade later, i was able to really deconstruct and examine some of the christian teachings i still carried with me. The things that allowed me to do that were polytheism and pluralism. By becoming a student of religion, and especially ones that were very old and very different from modern christianity, i feel that not only have i separated myself more fully from cultural christian teachings, ive also been able to replace those things with something better. Polytheism has made me kinder, more tolerant, and happier than either christianity or atheism. It made me better at fighting christian harms, too.

[@alianathefoxfairy]

Big agree! So many people equate "faith" and "religion" with christianity (especially the harmful kind) that they refuse to see the other amazing loving kind religions out there and generalize it all as "harmful." Religion can of course be used in a harmful way, but that doesn't mean religion itself is harmful. Too close to thought policing for me

[@Adman234videos]

I kept waiting for the ground news plug and was shocked every time it didn't segue

[@Ahrpigi]

I'm reminded of a particular comic panel of Batman; "This is the tool of our enemy. We do not need it, we will not use it."

[@james-cal]

in reference to what?

[@Ahrpigi]

@james-cal specifically, talking about ideas you don't agree with as a "mind virus"

[@drachenfeIs]

@@Ahrpigi And batman never seems to be able to stop crime

[@coffee3879]

The absolute irony of the comments section being filled with the exact type of people you’re talking about in this video. While atheism as a whole might be more left leaning, I think channels like this attract “enlightened centrist” types more than you’d expect

[@weirdwilliam8500]

A lot of these atheists seem to be the men who get very upset and defensive when we start emphasizing accountability for SA of women. That speaks volumes, to me.

[@jorgefreitas5983]

10:08 - my brain stopped functioning when I first heard this... The first thing that came to my mind when I understood what was being said was that it was written by someone who was raised in a religious environment, then declared to be gay to their families - or maybe stopped believing in the faith for some reason-, was sent to one of those "reeducation camps" and swore vengeance upon all religion while was there, using their methods against them... I'm really glad to hear your opinion on all these subjects. Be it criticizing religions or atheists, you always sound respectiful. Thanks!

[@SapientCephalopod]

These conversations always miss what I consider to be the critical point. There is only ONE legitimate way to KNOW things, and faith is not that method. The problem with religion isn't "what" they know it is "how" they know it. Theism is bad because it relies on bad epistomology that is fundamentally opposed to the scientific method. Faith isn't a mental illness but it does need to be delegitimized as a way of knowing things. If we eliminate "Faith" as a legitimate epistomology, religion dies as a result. I am perfectly happy to champion the "Elimination of Religion", but not becasue of "what they know". Religion needs to go because it perpetuates bad epistomology.

[@vejeke]

Exactly on point.

[@rainbowsorceress2082]

Believing and knowing are two separate things and if you can separate them in your mind then what you said ceases to be an issue.

[@cuauhtez]

This is a reactionary perspective and one that is impossible and illogical. You don’t and can’t know everything and there are indefinite areas of life where you absolutely accept things on faith or even against rationale thinking. This does not equal the giant leap of faith “harmful” that you just made. You’re just taking a dogmatized position on a concept (“faith”) and using it as a rhetorical weapon. Question even why you are questioning something and maybe we can get somewhere truly fruitful and possess understanding of where the line between subjectivity and objectivity actually lies. Positioning yourself as anti-bad epistemology to denigrate other people’s beliefs is a seriously dogmatic and dangerous approach when used wholesale like this. You already decided that religion was harmful and dangerous and of no value for other peopel.

[@gracecarpinter8623]

If faith is fundamentally opposed to the scientific method, then how do you explain religious scientists like Francis Collins? He worked on the Human Genome Project, and he is Catholic.

[@NieroshaiTheSable]

We're not talking about seeking ultimate knowledge, though. Unless you strongly believe that the only moral virtue is seeking knowledge and being wrong is a sin, you're way off topic. The average person doesn't need to be right about everything. We're just living our lives out here. For just about every cause you care about, you have allies who disagree with you about _something._ Possibly most things. Would you really rather side with a fascist than someone who believes that a cosmic Thor grants them courage to fight fascists alongside you? Because that's what the New Atheism thought leaders are doing. Actual fascism is less of a threat to them than the presence of "otherwise" good people who wear Mjolnir pendants.

[@DrKippDavis]

This is so good. Thank you.

[@SquatchLord666]

11:07 Himmler fucking sent me🤣

[@tamatebako_yt]

This is the kind of furthering of ideas we sorely need in today's atheist movement. I've been kind of disillusioned with parts of the community for a while now. Not because I no longer share the underlying ideals (like humanism or skepticism) or because I've suddenly become religious again, but because parts of the movement seem woefully stuck in the past in their approach to religion and either resort to relentless religion-bashing (pointless and not very classy if you ask me) or just reiterate the same talking points over and over at nauseam. I learned some valuable perspectives today I haven't really considered before, so thank you. We need people like you.

[@robertkelleher1850]

Sorry, but his argument against anti-theism is the quintessential straw man. Just because I believe religion is harmful does not mean I believe all religions are equally harmful. That's a lie. I found most of Ocean Keltoi's analysis flawed with overly broad statements, and conclusions that do not follow from his premises. I'll listen again, at some point, but his reasoning struck me as tenuous.

[@NieroshaiTheSable]

...you believe the very concept of religion is harmful, how could you not believe all religions are? You aren't just moving the goalpost, you're lying about which game we're playing.

[@robertkelleher1850]

@ I said “equally” harmful. I’m not moving goalposts. It’s not religions per se as much as it is reliance on faith as a basis for your world view. Many religions share this, but to wildly varying degrees.

[@littlestdread2504]

Thank you for this! Put into words something that I have been thinking about for awhile based on discussions we've had in The Hold. I wholeheartedly agree that pluralism is our path forward. It is also what helped me unpack some of the baggage I carried from being raised agnostic/atheist and allowed me to stop holding back from engaging with religion as a whole because its "bad". I feel so much more fulfilled being pagan and I am more involved with my community because of it.

[@SophiaAphrodite]

When Harris and Dawkins aligning with the far right, religous zealotry instead of with science on trans rights is peak hypocrisy and such a Boomer type thing to do.

[@Youttubeuser20932]

In what way are those two against science regarding trans issues? Specifically…

[@darlalathan6143]

Not this Boomer! I'm a left-wing Atheist, because I'm like, an aging hippie, man.

[@UnusVita]

Thank you for this. I fell down that pipeline. I have since escaped, people like you and videos like this were instrumental in getting out. Thank you!

[@roseredr1058]

It's funny, I used to watch you when I was crawling out of abusive beliefs from a church and becoming an atheist. You really helped me get over my fear of hell and put alot of things in perspective for me. Unfortunately, I did fall down the anti-theism pipeline; but was ironically pulled out of it with the help of Ocean, Wolf, and their community too. I'm now a polytheist and still enjoy watching your content and observations on things. Blessings friend ❤

[@42fang]

Well outlined! Love how you broke this down.

[@Reed5016]

This video has helped me understand why people are like this. Not just atheists, but Christian nationalists in general. Glad to see this channel speaking out against it. This Nationalist movement is one of (if not, the) biggest threat to freedom of religion in the modern world.

[@robertkelleher1850]

I hope not. This was not well-reasoned. And misrepresents anti-theism.

[@Lawrie-t4h]

​@robertkelleher1850 no it's a valid assertion

[@onderon4125]

I never even thought about anti-theism being problematic… I was heading that direction but pluralism seems much more my speed. Thank you for the video and the explanation. This opened my eyes quite a bit!

[@djsmeguk]

11:10 quite the slip of the old tongue there sir, bravo!

[@kapiteinfox3142]

Thank you for this video. Needed it. Especially this week as I've found myself raging about how the ways that Christian churches got us to this particular political moment...

[@marcusianparrish]

when you sound alarms and don't really accurately correlate "anti woke" with faith/religion and then undercut your main points at the end of the video, it smells like clickbait

[@shorgravan]

As someone who did get flushed down that pipeline for a while and then woke up to it, seing this discussed as a societal/political phenomenon was thought-provoking. Looking forward to the long-form video!

[@HotBaraDad666]

Ironically, I came out of it being religious by the end anyway. Sure, a different religion, but at least I woke up, hahaha.

[@aleksabanjevic8316]

I was slipping, but I cought my self before I went down. That's one of the reasons, while I do yell at people occasionally in online arguments and may devolt to insults, I don't truly hate them, they are all just doped

[@RyanJames1995]

This is so interesting. I'm a 29 year old heterosexual male, and have always considered myself a anti-theist. But I have never been anti woke. I despise people like Richard Dawkins who dump all over transgender people. My question is though... how do we live in a pluralistic society with people who hate gay people and trans people? They might not act on it, but they believe it in their heart and they vote accordingly. How do we deal with that? I would really love to explore this more. If anyone has any recommendations for books or videos that would be great.

[@ausaskar]

You didn't seem to have a problem with fundamental values mismatches when importing throngs of the third world. I guess you just have to live in the fractured dysfunctional society you created.

[@tfibacon854]

that 1:26 marxism jumpscare! that got me. did not expect you to be this real! tho, real talk, you're still doing an idealist analysis of why these people are popular and overrepresented as opposed to the evidently more popular opinions in atheist circles. what about a materialist analysis of these people? who funded them? how did their prominence spread? What's the material history? again, mentioning materialism is very much more than I ever expected, but you gotta apply it to the production and distribution of ideas and theory such as atheism as well. hope to see you keep on improving!!

[@GeneticallyModifiedSkeptic]

I thought someone might say this! It’s a valid point. I do think idealist analysis can be useful which is why I did some here, though I do agree that I could do more materialist analysis. I have in other videos, particularly in my recent video about Dawkins, but there’s absolutely room for more.

[@creativerealms]

Sometimes they go rightwing to avoid accountability, like David Silverman. Other times they just see something they don't understand and still act like an expert, like Dawkins.

[@taylorlibby7642]

How is Silverman "avoiding accountability" by being anti-woke?

[@Vishanti]

HELL YEAH this video rules. Great work, Drew!

[@peepo19]

Very insightful indeed. I've found myself in this pipeline in my early 20's - at around 23 I realised it was BS, 27 now and happy to approach the world with an open mind and care less about news & politics, truly a waste of emotion and time. I agree with the idea that's bad to pathologize your opponent, however religions do share many traits with viruses indeed, this is an idea that has been put forward by R. Dawkins as well in his memetics framework. I do think that this framework has value, especially for the "immunity to criticism" part, religions operate in a similar way to conspiracy theory with defensive projections / beliefs about their opponents i.e. categorising them in a certain way that makes sense for the conspiracy / religion at hand.

[@kylejohnson6]

This is incredible Drew. As someone who grew up on the "New Athiest" movement, its so refereshing to hear your takes on this.

[@Aethid]

Dawkins might be "anti-woke" sometimes, but he isn't really right wing in any meaningful way, and I'm not sure if Harris can realistically be considered either.

[@seanrowshandel1680]

Dawkins is like the people who got rich from crypto

[@andyisdead]

What about Christopher Hitchens?

[@coltondotdev]

@@andyisdead Hard to classify Hitchens. He was a socialist + imperialist. Ardent supporter of gay rights, but also loved the iraq war. Big supporter of torture until he tried it out then changed his mind. He passed away before the culture war BS turned up to 11 so we won't be able to see how he'd respond to that. Trying to place him on the political spectrum is probably as hard as anyone.

[@function0077]

@@andyisdead Sadly, Christopher Hitchens died in 2011, more than a decade ago. I am not sure what his take on LGBT issues was?

[@littlebitofhope1489]

Yeah, I was surprised to see Harris's picture. What does he do that is considered "anti-woke"?

[@calditos333]

Appreciate your videos very much.

[@MasterPeibol]

I think there is a middle ground. We cannot equate religion to gender, or race, for example, because the latter two do not have a slippery slope towards irrationality that the former has. Tolerance towards religion is ok, passivity is not.

[@xx_amongus_xx6987]

If you've already fallen down the slope of irrationality then it would be easy to not see it, but gender and race both indeed have slippery slopes towards irrationality. Take the liberal movements surrounding gender and race on the most extreme ends and try to tell me that they are anything but irrational. If you don't want to admit that exists, then at least look at the conservative movements surrounding the same things at their most extreme.

[@immxmax]

@@xx_amongus_xx6987 As someone who's wrestled with this, I hope you don't mind me giving my 2 cents. Full disclosure; I am trans/non-binary. And I can't _fully_ define what that actually means. What I can say is I know I experience mental distress identifying as a guy, and I feel unsure if I feel comfortable identifying as a woman, so I sit somewhere in-between. Now, I think a lot of the popular discourse on the subject. Lacks in nuance on both the left and the right, though the right's discourse I'd argue is more harmful, as it pretty much exclusively saying that I confuse, and so I must not exist, either because I'm some poor, naive sucker, or because I'm a secret manipulative creepy trying to trick people. Whereas the popular left discourse just. Kinda defines things so broadly that they lose meaning. That is _annoying_ but more confusing than harmful. And I think both responses somewhat reflect the "real" problem; we don't understand human biology (especially the brain) enough to give clear answers, but we _do_ understand enough to say that a binary, or even bi-modal view of gender is inadequate. And the concept of "gender" is where this gets complicated. Someone's sex is the relatively simple part, in of that we can examine it pretty well. Intersex and such conditions do muddy things, but not a lot. Gender, though? Now there's where we find ourselves in uncharted waters. Because the behaviours, mental tendencies, preferences, mannerisms, etc that tend to be ascribed to being male or female do seem to have a connection "beyond" the mind (though the mind itself is biological as well) _but_ these characteristics can vary from one culture to another. So "what is a woman/what is a man/what is neither?" seems to be a combination of learned traits that are not intrinsic to sexual characteristics, _and_ sexual characteristics. And trying to figure out which is which is a pretty complex topic, to a point where I'd argue it becomes counter-productive to _police_ it. I don't think gender is entirely decoupled from biology - I don't think our brain can identify as a rock in a meaningful way. But with how much people can vary, I'm not going to tell them how their head works; I'll do my best to help them get the support they need to be in the best place to understand their head, and trust them. And if someone _does_ identify as a rock, if that isn't meaningfully hurting anyone, then I'll let them live their life. And I caveat with _meaningful_ amount of harm for a reason - each step someone takes kills an uncountable amount of organisms, or causes other disruptions. I wish it didn't, but telling them to only walk on roads because that is where there is least likely to be anything living to harm is not productive or overall beneficial. And I try to give people a chance. I've had many times where I thought someone said something ridiculous, but after asking them some questions and thinking about it, I realized I didn't understand what they meant to communicate. Words are limited; sometimes you have to use words that approximate what you mean enough to get someone involved, so you can then unpack it.

[@drachenfeIs]

@@xx_amongus_xx6987 "the liberal movements surrounding gender and race" Turn the asmongold off and clean your room birdshitskin

[@colleenmcdonough246]

Thank you for this 😊

[@Alacritous]

I'm a liberal atheist and KZbin won't let me use the words I want to describe this steaming pile. How far skepticism has fallen. Hitchens would be rolling over in his grave.

[@FadedHeroFound]

Liberal or Socialist? Liberalism is a right wing capitalist ideology. We Communists use Dialectical materialism to understand the world & class consciousness

[@Alacritous]

@@FadedHeroFound Lower case l liberal.

[@grapenut6094]

​@@FadedHeroFound Its not exclusively left or right, they can be either.

[@markevans8206]

That’s not a “woke” issue, that’s capitalism issue. Also, what’s to be skeptical about “woke?” You think there are not systemic issues that reinforce the struggles of not-white-not-straight-not-men? Because that’s not skepticism, that’s ignorance. Mentioning systemic issues exist does not mean everyone involved in those systems are intentionally reinforcing those issues. (Except anti-woke influencers, they are either intentionally reinforcing biased systems and/or grifting.) P.S. At the risk of triggering you, patriarchy is bad for straight men too. And the term “toxic masculinity” does not mean all masculinity is toxic. Just as saying “red car” does not make all cars are red.

[@Alacritous]

​@@markevans8206 You’re arguing against a position I never took. My criticism was about the flawed reasoning, rhetorical manipulation, and logical fallacies in the video. You’re responding as if I denied systemic issues, which I didn’t. Your argument is as dishonest as the video itself.

[@capwitch25]

Very insightful. I have to say that no matter what one must keep an open mind always. Also I read something of cult that is good for you and a cult that is bad for you. What they meant was that a good cult will encourage you to critical think, accept you who are you, try to make you a better person, and if you leave them be okay with it. A cult bad for you will take away your thinking, tell what to believe, have all the answers, and never like questions. Keep up the work as I like them, and you're very informative.