Kyle Rittenhouse’s sister Faith is seeking $3,000 on a crowdfunding website in a bid to prevent the eviction of herself and her mother Wendy from their home, citing her “brother’s unwillingness to provide or contribute to our family.”
Kyle Rittenhouse’s sister Faith is seeking $3,000 on a crowdfunding website in a bid to prevent the eviction of herself and her mother Wendy from their home, citing her “brother’s unwillingness to provide or contribute to our family.”
Isn’t the right all about “family values?” Being “good” christians and whatnot? It goes with the territory.
You’re just mindlessly pigeonholing. You may be right, but it’s childish black and white thinking.
There are plenty of right wing atheists…
All right wingers support the imposition of the right’s hypocritical version of Christianity regardless of their personal beliefs.
wdym?
Can you name a prominent right wing Atheist
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.
Why do they have to be prominent?
Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, Hayek, and many more
I mean, feel free to check my own comments if you want
I was just answering your question, I think a majority of atheists do not end up skewing right/conservative generally because they don’t adhear to any of the outdated/harmful aspects of most mainstream religions.
Imo, religion having any correlation with being a bit more right wing is a historical coincidence, right wing economics was in the 18th and 19th century often tied to less religious people.
I love how the only three names you could come up with were dead people.
Or maybe it’s just who I thought of? I think it’s fair to even say Trump is effectively agnostic even if he wouldn’t admit it
Is it just who you thought of or is it that the modern right is completely in bed with the Christian theocrats? Whether or not you believe Trump is agnostic, he’s selling Bibles and making bank off of them.
Its who I thought of, because its (at least for Friedman, not Ayn Rand) who I align with more(somewhat) on the right. I am an agnostic and pretty right-wing(by my own definition)
Albinos exist also, what’s your point?
The overwhelming majority of right wing nutters are christian cultists.
this seems to say 27% of non-religious people lean republican Not exactly as rare as albinos
Yes there are. And most of them vote for conservative Democrats
Ok? Also, source?
What atheist supports the theists in the far right Republican party?
Famous atheists support Democrats.
Theism is not inherently right wing. I am agnostic, and consider myself fairly right wing
what? there are plenty of right-wing atheists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc
So, you a bot? You replied twice and neither make sense if you read my comment…
Yeah you a bot.
You claimed being right wing was limited to something unrelated to it. 2 responses because I didn’t know if one was uploaded because of crappy internet. But sure continue to believe a conspiracy about everyone who disagrees with you.
Removed by mod