When the hate preachers show up on campus with a bullhorn and try to tell everyone that they deserve to burn in hell, they don’t want the reat of the world to tell them to STFU.
I see. If someone is yelling obscenities at you then its probably ok to yell at them too although I wouldn’t bother personally. I don’t think this poll can mean anything though as I imagine everyone has different understandings of what a “speaker” is and is doing.
These open questions are always kinda crap to draw conclusions from because we don’t know how the question was interpreted by the people answering. In this case we also don’t know the sample size of the groups. Could also be a multitude of other variables at play like location because there are few places where you can find all these religions while getting a good sample size and controlling for other variables like income, education, age etc.
Bro these people stand in common areas shouting about how everyone is going to hell. They dont have a case and dont deserve any respect. If anything they deserve some counseling from a medical professional.
Texas' articles of secession name slavery as a main cause twelve times. Georgia's calls abolitionism "heresy" and Mississippi, bless them, referred to it with "a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization," before going even further with such quotes as
[The US government] refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.
It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.
Which I am only leaving here because somebody wrote that, meant it, and sent it off, and it is insane to read.
Fortunately for Mississippi, their constituents can't.
reminder that every time people complain about wokeness they’re literally just complaining about being conscious about systemic racism, because that’s what woke means.
Just replace “woke” with “being a decent person” and it becomes pretty clear what these people want.
“Woke” started out as a simple acknowledgment that a person is conscious of the systemic oppression of various groups. Now the right wing has got its claws into the term it’s been effectively neutered. Now all it means is, “stuff that right wingers don’t like”
It’s like “defund the police” which quickly became “abolish all policing”.
It’s a useful strategy for them and it works to prevent honest discussion on how to solve societal problems by preventing people from having a shared understanding of the language needed for such discussion.
Ugh, “defund the police” is a terrible phrase if you actually want the movement to succeed. I wish they would have gone with something along the lines of “police reform”. Immediately every conservative glommed onto “now they want to abolish all police!”
We do need a massive overhaul to police. Unfortunately that means better marketing of the idea of it’s going to happen.
I could be wrong but “defund the police” was just a discussion point for activists talking amongst themselves. In that context it makes sense. What happened was that this inelegant phrase was seized as a weapon by the right and then every Dem politician had to answer if they supported the idea of abolishing the police.
I’d imagine that many people would be receptive to the idea of taking some money out of police budgets so social workers and people trained in deescalation can be hired. For example cops aren’t a good fit when dealing with people facing mental health crises because they mostly turn to use of force and make a bad situation worse.
If you twist this into, “are you in favor of abolishing all police?” then most people are going to say, “hell no, what a stupid idea, you moron”.
Now any discussion about the rotten state of policing in the US had been effectively hobbled. Discussion is shut down. The right wing wins.
I know the real idea behind it. I just never liked it being summarized as defund. It’s more like restructure. Personally, I would be much more aggressive with an overall. It’s rotten top to bottom.
What happened was that this inelegant phrase was seized as a weapon by the right
I vividly remember tons of memes and posts on reddit, done in leftist grups by leftist people stating the sentence “defund the police”. The right did manipulate the meaning, but saying that they were the sole perpetrators of the popularity of the phrase is silly.
In number? idk, about 1-3 a day that was on the top of r/all with tons of comments, iirc it was when the Floyd protest were happening, alongside the BLM movement (not the organization). I don’t remember it too well, it’s been 3 years already, but I do remember that it was a whole thing with posts, comments, memes and so on.
Unfortunately police reform doesn't necessarily imply taking police funds and diverting them to nonviolent responders instead. It's hard to make that into a catchy phrase that can't be misinterpreted. I could see cities implementing some rubber-stamp oversight board filled with ex-cops and saying, "see, we reformed the police! They have oversight now."
just about every police reform has failed to provide any independent oversight, failed to address the core problems, and generally just poured more money into the already bloated and militarized police force.
For better or worse, that aspect is never going away. Places with less funds, like rural counties and cities, rely on their police to do everything that gets called in to 911 and isn’t fire/ems/construction (which, thankfully, they have dedicated teams/people for).
Ugh, “defund the police” is a terrible phrase if you actually want the movement to succeed.
I feel like these are probably astroturfed movements. Because you can say the same thing about the “antiwork” movement, whose proponents claim to actually want to work.
The designation of your movement is kind of important.
Same happened to the terms “political correctness” and “social justice”. The meaning gets twisted into something grotesque by think tanks and then it’s shipped out to talking heads so Billy-Bob can regurgitate it at the water cooler.
Critical Race Theory, school libraries full of porn, caravans of migrants heading to the southern border, activist judges legislating from the bench, and so on.
I still have a hard time how “woke” is bad. Woke means your not asleep, it means you are not guided by others. How can people turn this into a bad thing. I’m proud to be woke.
This is 100% correct. The term has no definition in their world, it is just another form of their “boogeyman” control methods to keep the stupid and scared engaged. It only works on these fearful idiots because of this fact.
I honestly can’t believe that using this word unironically has caught on. Everything I think is just a stupid joke on the internet turns out to be the internet reflecting just how idiotic humanity really is.
Either that, or just an unpleasant shock at just how ‘mask-off’ some people have become.
Lots of 'woke' people are shitty people. I've had way too many experiences in the past few years with 'woke' people screaming at me about how I need to read more women authors or I'm a shitty awful human being. Or other equally absurd things, like I'm a bigot if I don't ask you what your pronoun is. If you have a pronoun preference, how about you tell me? Just like you tell someone how to pronounce your name if it's non-standard.
I know lots of progressive people, and I am progressive. But I would never say I am 'woke'. People who self-identify 'woke' tend to be mentally ill crazy people in my encounters, and use their politics as an excuse for abusive and hostile behavior just the way right-wing nazi nutbags do.
Hell I even had a transwoman assault me verbally one day while I was just reading a book in a cafe. Comes up to me and demands that I give her my table because I'm a white cis guy and I should give up my 'privileged' to her. I told her to f off. My small business has been harassed by 'woke' activists who demand we give them money or they will say we are anti-black/lgbt+, etc. That's not woke, that's blackmail.
Most 'woke' people I meet are basically 20 sometime trust-fund types who need a cause to give her their miserable lives purpose, because god knows they can't get their shit together and do something positive with their lives. If they did maybe they'd stop being such awful abusive people who threaten and harass others.
Hell I even had a transwoman assault me verbally one day while I was just reading a book in a cafe. Comes up to me and demands that I give her my table because I’m a white cis guy and I should give up my ‘privileged’ to her.
Hell I even had a transwoman assault me verbally one day while I was just reading a book in a cafe. Comes up to me and demands that I give her my table because I’m a white cis guy and I should give up my ‘privileged’ to her. I told her to f off. My small business has been harassed by ‘woke’ activists who demand we give them money or they will say we are anti-black/lgbt+, etc. That’s not woke, that’s blackmail.
Hey! It’s “being a decent person in a way not sanctioned by their local culture”. If you’re decent to the correct people with enough pandering imagery that’s fine.
Atheism is refusal of forced ideas upon someone. Which means one has to use critical thinking to determine their path in life. The problem is that it’s much harder to control the masses if that population thinks for themselves.
Tolerance for Conservative Speakers included four topics such as “Black Lives Matter is a hate group,” and “The lockdown orders issued in response to the coronavirus have infringed on our personal liberties.” When more students indicate that they would be willing to let such a person speak on campus, this indicates a more open free-speech climate.
Always/sometimes is one answer? Isn’t that incredibly awful survey taking practice? Also, is this about people’s right to criticize public speakers? Because it seems like the pro free speech position is to let people criticize public speakers
This comment needs more attention. Sometimes I wash Lemmy had awards like Reddit to make important things visible.
Never would be allowing someone to scream racial slurs and ignoring it. Rarely and sometimes should be replaced with “it depends”. Always probably means the same thing as sometimes since you aren’t going to shout down a good speaker that you agree with. The whole survey doesn’t make sense when you stop to think about it.
I know you're trolling and indeed fuck the rest, but..buddhist monks? Pretty hard to have beef with. No pun intended.
I guess you could make the case that encouraging indifference towards suffering breeds a whole different class of sociopathy, but even then, at least they're the least destructive they can possibly be by just never touching anything.
Well. "Extremist" and "nationalist" were never words I thought I would see attached to the phrase buddhist monk, but here we are, I fucking guess. That's a thing that I know now.
I'm about to just eschew anything bipedal at this point. Two legs bad.
And on a related note, zen buddhists have a pretty vile subsect that is entwined with Japanese militarism and has been for centuries. However there are a lot of buddhists who are really good people, and lots of buddhist sects likewise. As with almost all religions, it depends on the particular flavor of ideology they have adopted.
Don’t forget adventist, pentecostalism, lutheranism, etc. There’s dozens of christians religions in the USA that may hate each others. This doesn’t make much sense.
Shit in my comment I forgot all about Adventists and pentecostal. Oh jeez, let’s hope the singular group that makes it to heaven takes mercy on my failure to include them.
Because it’s not enough to argue with Muslims and atheists, they need to be more right than other people who believe in the same God in different ways.
Because they all seem to think their beliefs are the true beliefs of what the Bible teaches. They will always be at war with one another.
The “teachings” of the Bible are all based on how one person interprets it compared to another, the individual churches all believe the same version as they were taught by their religious leaders, who in turn believe their ultimate religious leader, for example the Catholic Church (all variations) follow the pope and his interpretation.
We have a very large christian population, and they all don’t behave in a monolithic manner. For surveys it makes sense to ask which denomination or type of christian they are. Some will response Catholic, Baptist, Protestant. Some will respond christian, sometimes non-denominational christian. It improves the survey results. For example, you might find differences between Catholics and Baptists that wouldn’t show up if you grouped them all together under a christian category.
Oh American christianity is something different as a whole.
I’ll give my best summary in as few words as I can during my lunch.
Christianity is an Abrahamic faith with its roots in catholicism. When Martin Luther, a catholic from Germany, wrote a large 95 point thesis detailing his problems with catholicism and how the church had been warped from its intention, this lead to whay most modern Americans would call Lutheranism.
This reformation of the church that started with Martin Luther is known as the Protestant Reformation, protestants being anyone who believed in Christ but not in the orthodox or catholic belief set and rites.
The separation of that faith and the pursuit to practice it openly (sometimes even if it was MORE restrictive than the existing systems) led to the exodus of religious groups to America. This is where some Americans get the idea that “america was founded on Christianity and religious freedom”, as these were protestants who were escaping religious persecution for rejecting mainline catholicism.
Some time down the line, I don’t know the history of this part, the general term for anyone believing in christ but not catholicism (some going as far as saying lutheranism is catholic-lite as they still practiced communion and most protestants don’t recognize communion or any of the ‘rites’ as those are things they see as placed on top of religion by man and not by God) was just left at Christians.
For all intents and purposes, in the US, Christian mostly means Protestant, methodist, Lutheran, Baptist, Southern Baptist (they’re separate, I was raised Southern Baptist, they get pissy about being lumped in), calvinist, and non-denominational (people who don’t claim a ‘branch’ but worship christ in a way not easily or intentionally not tied to a singular rhetoric.
Please ask more questions and I’ll try my best. Having been born to a Southern Baptist family, it’s a topic I love to discuss and learn more on. I’m not religious though, so hopefully none of my stuff comes off disrespectful, just happens to be a family trade I can’t quite put down.
Oh that I couldn’t answer. They probably are referencing a study where those options were listed. A lot of practicing Christians I know aren’t even positive what they declare so they just put down non-denominational, I’m assuming ‘Christian’ was another good catch-all term that nabbed anyone who had a general belief in Christ but no organized practice of that belief.
It’s a horrible graph. Likely they meant ‘evangelical protestant’ to differentiate that group from protestants like Lutherans Methodists Anglicans etc.
I think most would cite something like the paradox of intolerance - you need a bit of intolerance of intolerance to sustain any tolerance.
I bet the Christian stat would have been higher in the past too, when they were on the front foot and the controversial speaker was less likely to be someone they agreed with.
FIRE files lawsuits against colleges and universities that it perceives as curtailing First Amendment rights of students and professors. FIRE has been described as a competitor of the ACLU. In 2021, the organization had an annual revenue of $16.1 million. ...
FIRE has received major funding from groups which primarily support conservative and libertarian causes, including the Bradley Foundation, Sarah Scaife Foundation, and the Charles Koch Institute. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Individual_Rights_and_Expression
Add comment