663
Kyle Rittenhouse's family plead for money as they face eviction
(www.newsweek.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2024
663 points (91.0% liked)
News
23296 readers
928 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Michael Shermer.
All prominent atheists, all decidedly right-wing. If you want to include dead atheists, then I'd also say Christopher Hitchens was decidedly right wing on a lot of issues.
Richard Dawkins is definitely NOT right wing lmao
Sam Harris is NOT right wing
I don't know Michael Shermer, but he states he's fiscal conservative but social liberal, I'm not sure I'd count that as "decidedly right wing" either.
...Have you been paying attention to Dawkins in the last decade? The dude is decidedly anti-trans, anti-woke. Harris has been on the side of Republican foreign policy for decades, even if he's more socially permissive. Shermer is the same kind of anti-LGBTQ anti-woke as Dawkins.
No tbh, I was big into atheism back in the early 2010s, dogma debate, Atheist experience, thinking Atheist, rationally speaking, probably more podcasts I'm forgetting off-hand, fell off a bit around the mid there and got heavy into politics and conspiracy theory rebuttals instead (Knowledge Fight, QAnon Anonymous, behind the bastards, secular talk, breaking points more recently) definitely haven't kept up so much with the old Atheism crews. That is definitely unfortunate though semi understandable, Dawkins is/was very science/data driven, and biologically speaking the majority of people fall into the duality of male/female, and how you identify/feel is a different matter in many people's eyes. Then again, I think there's still a lot for us to uncover about how our bodies and brains develop/function that likely play into people feeling like they ARE/should be the opposite gender. I will say the first tweet he made that I read didn't specifically sound Trans-hating, it was very much a fair enough discussion question about how to handle situations like transsexual or transracial, though he went about it in a way that definitely comes across as demeaning.
Idk overall, seems like he slid even more into platforming and agreeing with antitrans and TERFs like JK Rowling, so that's certainly not great.
But does that alone make him Right Wing now? I don't think so specifically
"Gender critical" is a dogwhistle for anti-trans. Dawkins falls squarely into that camp, of questioning everything that trans people, and experts on the subject have to say. The problem with being anti-trans--or, one of the problems--is that by its nature it assumes that there's some kind of sex role in society. E.g., women are A, B, C, and men are X, Y, Z, and you can't move between them. That kind of gender-essentialism is fundamentally socially regressive. Dawkins is also quite significantly culturally Christian, and Islamophobic, e.g., he is entirely critical of Islam both as a religion and as what he perceives to be a culture, but doesn't direct the same types of criticism towards the Anglican church that he grew up surrounded by.
The way I see it, it's just not my business. The only time that someone else's gender identity is going to matter to me is if I'm potentially interested in dating them. They're not harming people, they're not 'taking' anything away from cis-women (or cis-men, for that matter), so why should it be my business what they feel they need to do with their body in order to feel comfortable in their own skin? I came across this a few weeks back, and it really drove that home to me.
It's a spectrum, like all things. You can be pro-science, but also still have a very socially conservative view on the 'right' place for people in society, or still maintain false beliefs about the 'rightness' of capitalism, imperialism, and so on. And scientists are still human, and prone to the same cognitive biases as everyone else.
Being right wing doesn't necessarily mean being religious. Being left wing doesn't necessarily mean being atheist. Yes, that's more often true than not, but I think part of that is that the right in general uses an appeal to tradition--which includes religious practices--as part of their package. But, on the other hand, Jesus, as depicted in the 4 gospels and the early Christian church, would have been very comfortable to socialists, as would the teachings on tolerance.
In re: podcasts, the only explicitly atheist one that I still listen to is The Friendly Atheist. I find Jess to be annoyingly hyperbolic most of the time, and she frequently makes wildly overbroad statements, but Hemant Mehta is pretty measured overall. Mostly I listen to politics (FiveThirtyEight), 2A podcasts (A Better Way 2A, the irregular Tiger Bloc Podcast, Guns Guide To Liberals, Practical Shooting After Dark), a couple of ex-Mormon podcasts (Mormon Stories is great if you love really, really long form interviews), You Are Not So Smart, sometimes BtB, Cool People Who Did Cool Things, a couple others.