@@ImAmirus I personally like the positive spirit of this movement. I understand people's suffering. This is a linguistic movement in my heart, and I support genderless pronouns. However, the positive spirit isn't reflected by the people who are arguing for this movement. Yellings, cancellings-instead of removing the gender pronouns, they are inventing new pronouns like teenagers who are dying for being recognized. And you are forced to be good at with the movement. It is exactly like dogma. The movement may not be considered as a dogma, but people are turning it into a religion. You cannot "Force" people to do anything this is a wrong way. Movement is not wrong. The way is wrong. And even disliked by people who fight for those people who are suffering, like Richard Dawkings
@@ImAmirus i strongly disagree. In an everchanging universe, a dogma (cannot change as it's definition),is not a justifiable concept even if you base it on reality.
Thank you Dr. Dawkins for responding to Jordan Peterson. It was the perfect time as Peterson and Piers Morgan were talking about you during their last interview. Lots of love and respect from an Iranian ex-Muslim in Europe. (I lost my religion by reading Quran!)
exactly that's the way i lost my faith in bible as so-called God word right after reading it several times. i was born to religious parents of east orthodox church btw.
Not convinced there is a "new cult" here at all. I'm seeing an old man who got his feelings hurt by a bunch of ignorant twitter comments. People should be able to live the life they want.
@@cameroncameron2826 I stick with independent opinions, so, this guy being "the father" or Jordan Peterson being the "mother" or "stepmother" means nothing to me. I read. more than 2000 books by now. I write. I have thousands of hours of online information, so I make my own opinion, and do not look for any "parenthood of thoughts". they say their views, I collect them, together with facts, and reach my own conclusions. I do not need anyone to tell me how to think, what to think, where to think, when to think, or why to think. I am a Journalist. based on the basic rules of factual journalism - how, what, where, when and why. 5 questions. the five questions we need to ask before making a decision, or publishing any article. the 5 fundamental questions that any individual should ask before having a final opinion. the media used to do that for us. not anymore. so, now, I trust no one. it works out even better, because I am less deceived by others. and my brain is more active.
@@juliorosa9857 It is factual that there are thought crimes in force in the UK & europe & that by law you would NOT be allowed to violate them. It is also factual that new atheism founded the models that lead to them. Thus your reply concerning what you can think and will, though an account of the way things ought to be, does not illustrate a well read mind in the slightest because a post truth era where many thoughts are banned has arrived..
@@cameroncameron2826 got your point, but you did not get mine. let me try to explain - the 5 question are not exclusive to my / our society. they should be part of the entire planet, cultures, religions, civilizations. the more we ask, the more we try to understand, the more we get from it. i will not go into a faith or religious debate here, not because you do not deserve it, but because it would take too long for us to debate it in writting. i believe that in any regime, from democracy to totalitarianism, there are restrictions that undermine evolution. and such restrictions operate within the conformities of grey zones that are beyond belief. I lived in Portugal, UK and Middle East. I learned the restrictions, not only legal, but also in the way we conduct ourselves, not because we are adjusting to culture, but also, in the case of Islam, of the consequences. George Orwell is almost a mentor to me, but there are so many others, on the case for own governments or totalitarian ideologies control us. such a perfect description of it. but like above, when it comes to grey areas of control, there are also grey areas of response - I cannot go to Teeran and make a fush. I would get killed. but i can do a fush in New York or London. does not make me a hero, for sure. but makes my point across, in a place that the point can be made. that is a plus. for how long can i make a point on those places, that really concerns me. when logic cannot be expressed in the lands that generated free speech, i do not have any hove that it can be expressed in the middle east. or parts of Africa. China. North Korea/ you know the list. the concern is that the same approach is getting more momentum in Western civilization, under the cover of "progressive" culture. that is really a problem, when being progressive used to be debating opinions to what is now, one single party line of complete dogma. and dogma is what got the planet in trouble. dogma. one single set of beliefs. like Islam. The Spanish Inquisition. Nazism. Comunism. etc, etc, etc. without freedom of opinion, thought, expression, dogma wins. and wen dogma wins, humanity loses.
@@juliorosa9857 You just spoke my mind, it’s glad to know that a person across the world thinks same as you think, it’s hard to find these people in my country because I live in Pakistan and the thing you said about Middle East and North Korea makes me sad. Also I am not only against authoritarianism I am terrified by it. I mean look at the two countries like South Korea and North Korea , same people,same history but look how different they are. Hypothetically One looks like a heaven and other is life less hell. thanks for existing man 🙏 we need people like you 🎉
It's a shame that when Dr Peterson had the chance to discuss such issues with Professor Dawkins, he simply spoke over him and did not allow the Professor get a word in edge ways. I love that Professor Dawkins responded with a well thought out, spoken answer, not just toilet graffiti. We are very lucky to have this man.
That line about "graffiti in the lavatory that is Twitter" is such a gratifyingly cathartic description of Twitter et. al. It feels good to hear someone call it as it is.
I agree ! I really hope they can try it again sometime. If i recall the first time Sam Harris and Jordan spoke, it was a total disaster aswell. I believe Richard and Jordan are both starting to scratch the surface of objective truth and they will likely meet in the middle ( if they are capable of doing so in their lifetime ).
@@SamsungA-fo8rgPeterson is incapable of actually ceding a point. Literally incapable. Hell, even Benjamin Shapiro will cede a valid point every now and then. So there will be no meeting in the middle unfortunately
While it was here delivered from a quote, when he does swear it has so much more impact than from a type that swears profusely. Another highly eloquent speaker that reminds me of is Stephen Fry, in the many videos I've watched from him, he very rarely swears but it's always carries a lot of weight.
@@benwu7980agreed, when men like Dawkins and Fry swear the words carry the weight they are supposed to simply because it is unexpected and because these words are not often spoken by the men. For me it adds to their intellect rather than takes away from it like it would with a person who uses swear words much more frequently.
2:10 "Bigot" used to mean: "Someone who is intolerant of other people's opinions". Now it seems to mean: "Someone who has an opinion that we don't like".
Professor, since the day I read "The God Delusion" I've become a huge admirer of your work. You are an inspiration to everyone who is still fighting to affirm the truth everyday. Thank you for everything you do.
A true intellectual, unbiased and always in search for the truth! Thank you for your courage to always speak out against irrationality! We need more people like Prof. Dawkins who are capable of rational analysis instead of adhering to political trends.
The true atheist ethos would be, or should be a rigorous pursuit of truth. And yet large numbers of us swallow woke dogma whole, without batting an eye.
To be fair what is an atheist? As there are many different varieties of Christian, varying from those simply helping others in need with no desire for any reciprocal benefit to the members of the westboro Baptist church, so too does the term “atheist” encompass those who “believe” in nothing but a love of learning through rigorous scientific research as well as those who give legitimacy to their astrological sign and simply don’t believe there is a Christian god.
We greatly need more like Dawkins. I get a bit frustrated that such a LARGE majority of people attacking "woke" are part of the Jesus cult, as if the opposite of woke is worshiper. There needs to be more voices calling out BOTH.
Mr. Dawkins mentioning Christopher Hitchens at the end was nice. I've been thinking about him and what he would think of 2023, and this felt like the closest I can get.
i find this quite devastating because i think of the future. he's in his 80's now, so i'm glad he still seems healthy and fighting whilst he can, but all the people that stand up to this are older people. as someone in my 30's, i'm worried about what state the world will be in with this when i'm richard's age and they'll be the ones in government
@@ImAmirus Damn, you’re so ignorant on the topic it’s hilarious. Dawkins doesn’t redefine sex. It’s been defined for centuries. Males produce or would be expected to produce sperm. Females eggs. It’s not that complicated. Don’t hurt yourself lmao 🤣🤣🤣🤣
I'm in my 40s and I think we're headed toward a dystopian future. Sometimes I feel like we're in an The Emperor's New Clothes situation. The majority of the population actually thinks like Dawkins, Rowling and the like, they just don't say it. The best-known version of the fairytale is Andersen's, but The Emperor's New Clothes is actually a Spanish fairytale, and there's a few differences. The Emperor is buck naked, but if you point it out it doesn't mean that you're stupid, it means that you are not your father's biological child. In addition to the embarrassment, saying that the Emperor is not wearing any clothes would also mean that you could no longer claim your father's inheritance. And instead of a child (as in Andersen's version), it is a pauper who says that the Emperor isn't wearing any clothes, a man who is an outcast already and has nothing to lose. Well, most of us have a lot to lose.
Richard, I want to say you are such an amazing inspiration to me. Your intellect and fight for the truth have helped me always put objective reality at the forefront of my life and the decisions I make. The way I have found peace and in a sense "religion" though not really a religion, is by allow myself to find wonder in the world and the ways in which natural selection has run its course. By appreciating the natural world, I feel a deep connection to it and this fulfills me. I am constantly amazing that the planet we live on has the ability to not only create us, but all the insane combinations of creatures that live on it. This connection and the pursuit of greatness provides me with a set of morals and values that do not consist of what I call "end of species behavior." Thank you for all you do! I wish you health and happiness! -Love Angel :)
I often wish that I had never read a single book by Dawkins for the obvious reason that the truth sucks; it's depressing, miserable and bleak. Before I backup that statement, I want to draw your attention to one thing that Dawkins does which I think is bordering on being dishonest. When people like me confront him about the depression that his books cause to some people by dispelling their notions of life after death or of a benevolent God, he bats them off by saying how "wonderful" reality is, how fascinating life is, and how he only cares about the truth wherever that may take him, and if that upsets people then "so what!". Tell me how exactly is reality better than our made-up fantasies? When we die, we cease to exist! That is very depressing to me (and I'm sure to most people). Or there is no purpose in life, except what you make it! Sure, learning about evolution is fun (to some), but so is reading a novel or watching a movie or spending time with your family or friends. I resent the snobbery of academics/intellectuals who make out that the pursuit of knowledge is somehow a more noble or important pursuit than everyday things that normal people do with their lives. My point is that supernatural beliefs (some of them anyway) DO ACTUALLY provide far more comfort than harsh reality (no matter how interesting reality may be), especially when the chips are down. Life sucks for a lot of people and learning how to critically think can often make matters worse. You make out like reality is something GLORIOUS and WONDERFUL. Some of it is, but in my view the majority is absolutely diabolical, such as a baby born with profound disabilities. You cherry pick the good stuff and conveniently leave out the bad in your ode to life. Well, I think you have brainwashed yourself and the people who thumbed up your comment are just as bias as you are! What is objectively good about dying and being no more? Moreover, evolution itself is one of the most depressing aspects of life - survival of the fittest often means nasty horrible things make it while nice things become extinct, and that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the negative things that I can say about evolution!
Is there something in this diatribe akin to 'Pascal's wager?' I'm not sure, partly through my limited knowledge on it, but mainly due to the verbose account proffered.
Nobel prize-winning biologist Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard said in an interview, "With all mammals there are two sexes, and the human being is a mammal. There's the one sex that produces the eggs, has two X chromosomes. That is called female. And there's the other one that produces the sperm, has one X chromosome and one Y chromosome. That's called male. And when an egg unites with a sperm, a new being is created. [...] Intersexuality arises from very rare deviations, for example in the chromosome set. But also intersexual people have the characteristics of both sexes, they are not a third sex. [...] There are people who want to change their sex, but they cannot. They remain XY or XX. The crucial thing is that the fact whether one has a Y-chromosome already affects the development of the embryo during pregnancy and of course also in the adolescent."
what he says is true, no doubt. Some people are utterly nonsensical in their beliefs, but it is a tragedy that we have nothing to look forward to, in the end, but oblivion.
Sir Richard has unleashed the thought of Great sceptical, Critical thinking, rationalism on the word woke which has shown us the discrimination against sexism , LGBT, religious dogma...the awareness will wake up the consciousness awakening of us all...Thank you Sir...
Great questions from Prof. Peterson, and well answered by Prof. Dawkins. And all it took was 8 minutes. Now there is both clarity and conciseness for you...and truth!
There aren't too many well-known atheists who always place intellectual honesty above political correctness. Richard Dawkins is one. The only other one who comes to mind is Ricky Gervais.
Agreed. Many atheists don’t use logic when it comes to woke ideology, and many theists use religion as an argument against wokeness, not actual logic and science.
The problem with the last response is that there's no chance that society will be as rational as Dawkins. He may be confident in his own ability to reject evil and harmful nonsensical ideologies without resorting to religion, but society as a collective has no such ability. This is why what Ayaan Hirsi Ali said is incredibly important. Places that reject religion do not reduce their levels of superstition. They just replace one superstition with another.
Every atheist I have ever met projects themselves as being representative of the broader society. For highly educated scientific people its astonishing they fail to see that there is zero evidence that societies that rejected God were any better- in fact we only need to go back to the 20th century Communist States to see what happens. Worse. Much worse.
Thank you Richard; you aren't the first one to notice the eerie similarities. And to see it capture the former "Skeptic movement" is as interesting as sad.. sometimes I wonder if there's a particular gene that makes people susceptible to group think... "in the name of science - let's ignore the science"... and I've seen it more and more ; "Atheists" willingly taking part in a new religion.
Is it resllya new religion? Are you sure youre not just saying that because its simple and snappy? Most ideologies have something in common with some religions, no? Here in the case of "the cult of woke" we were given the example "hunting heresy". Doesnt that apply to, for just two other examples, cold war-era capitalism and communism, where political "dyssent" was very often met with discrimination or even violence? I certainly agree that those forms of capitalism and communism were SIMILAR to religions in that respect. But i wouldnt go calling them "new religions" just based on a few similarities. Would you?
@@pagjimaagjinen9733 I would say that woke isn’t a religion. As all of Dawkins’ examples related to transgenderism, I would say that, that is really a religion. I would also say that it has an element of supernaturalism which is the hallmark of religions, and distinguishes it from other political movements like you mentioned.
@@cyclicozone2072 What is the supernatural claim there, though? They merely have a different definition of a few terms that i assume you do, and definitions are something we're free to make up as we please. An example of what i mean: a trans person may say "sex and gender are two different concepts, and neither is defined, in part or at all, by the other". I would assume you disagree with this, but i dont see a science-based argument you could make to justify this. Same goes for the trans person, obviously.
@@pagjimaagjinen9733 The idea that a person can be born in the “wrong body” belies a belief in an entity separate from the body which is gendered. This is a false, unscientific notion that is comparable to the belief in a soul.
On the first question, I'm a little bit confused by some of your reasoning, Richard. I overall agree with the conclusion that it's a religion (though I wouldn't refer to it as "woke", since it is so badly defined). On the second question, I wish you would have pushed back harder against Peterson's (quite frankly insulting) accusation that you are part of what caused this. Peterson himself is just a more eloquent Deepak Chopra who only enables and encourage people to take part in dogmatic religions by the wilfull practice of deepities and sophistry.
A Contribution to the critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. Introduction - K Marx - Early Writings- Penguin Classics Gives an alternative view as regards religion.
"Wokeness" definetely _can_ be dogmatic, cult-like, and even if you can argue that the radical progs don't count as a religion, you still have to agree they and the religious are more similar than different.
Two of my heroes duking it out, while nonetheless agreeing on what is most important to me: that all humans must be both allowed and encouraged to think for themselves. When he opines that religions and their concomitant moral codes are necessary for human societies to maintain a high level of civility, I think Dr. Peterson is implying-without, for obvious reasons, saying so-that the average human lacks the intellect and creativity required to accept the universe in its natural state, especially when it comes to our terrifying fragility.
@@stefcepHe has debated many Muslims and criticized Islam many times though. You’re referring to the few times he decided not to comment on some Islamic principles discussed in the Quran, the reason why is because he doesn’t know much about it. He hasn’t read the Quran. He has read the Bible and lives in a mostly Christian country, so he commonly focuses on Christianity. I have read his books though, and he has criticized Islam many times.
He's a scientist, he cares about hard facts, research, not a subjective assessment of reality. Where are the research studies that indisputably prove that the brain is responsible for sex? There aren't and there won't be any.
@@AnnaSzajda Dawkins doesn't seem to understand that sex and gender aren't the same thing. You can google and find plenty of research into the neurobiology of gender identity/expression. Actual peer reviewed studies in scientific journals. Maybe Dawkins doesn't know about them? Nah, I think the real reason he's been on this anti-trans kick is because he got "canceled" for asking dumb anti-trans questions under the guise of rational discourse.
@@KindNine The whole gender thing in Western culture is a perpetuation of sick patterns dating back to the 1960s. A male in a dress and make-up is still a male. There is no such thing as a female with a penis/penis hole. Sorry. Nothing will change that, what matters is hard data, science, biology, not some social construct invented by the extreme left. There are no such neurobiological studies because there is no male/female brain separation. People in mental institutions also have a lot of things said about themselves and nobody takes them seriously. We're in the 21st century, we want to send a man to Mars, and we're going backwards by half a century on basic issues. Disgusting.
Dawkins's insight of the semantic correlation between the respective contra-evidential Dogmatics of "Catholicism expressed as Aristotelian Metaphysics" and "Wokeism in terms of Standpoint Epistemology" is, on first encounter, distressingly deft.
They don’t ‘laud’ transgender people Richard. They treat them with kindness and respect. I am surprised by your mean-spirited attitude to this small minority group who have for long been persecuted and mocked
I would add that in addition to heresy-hunting and suppression of heretical views, "Woke" also exhibits another trait shared with religion: the ability to ringfence its beliefs and not subject them to the same standards of proof demanded for everything else. It's strongly reminiscent of the way theists are identical to atheists with regard to every other god but make special exceptions for their own. Specifically, it has been a strange experience in recent times to watch Matt D., who for years has insisted (correctly) that personal experiences and personal "revelation" do not cut the mustard when seeking to prove the reality of your god to anyone else, but now - presumably due to his personal life - insists that a man's personal revelation that he is in fact a woman is absolutely all that should be required in order for society at large to not only be obliged to accept that assertion as fact but also be required to dignify it accordingly in word and action or be branded a heretic. Both are stating belief as fact and expecting others to go along with the belief. I can't - and won't - make a special exception for one and not the other. I prefer to apply a single standard across the board. Trans claims no more pass my "baloney test" than god claims do; they're very similar, both demanding that I accept someone's unevidenced personal belief as fact. No can do.
A simple false equivalence to compare the spurious religious claims of supernaturalism with one's own personal experience. It's like comparing the claim "God is real" with the personal attestation, "I am a Christian" and saying that both are equally false claims about reality when the latter is a true claim about the personal beliefs held by that person and not a fundamental claim about cosmology. No matter anyone's belief, their humanity and dignity should be paramount in regard to how they are treated in society.
I'm a huge fan of bot Prof Dawkins and Matt D and have never considered the connection that you've stated here and your post has really got me thinking. Do you know of any reading material you could point me to that would help me further understand?
@@Andymartin1175 I'm afraid not, as it's just my own thoughts. I'm also a fan of Matt's, and have for many years found him to be a nimble thinker when it comes to theism, but he's definitely not applying the same standards when it comes to trans issues that he demands of theist callers, and that's troubling. It's doublethink. Matt appears to be acting exactly as theists do toward their one chosen god and making a special exception for a belief that he is personally invested in. For want of a better word, that seems "compromised" to me. That's why I find it incredibly refreshing that Prof Dawkins is not only applying the same standard to both issues - no special exception, despite incredible social pressure on him to conform - but has also noticed the worrying similarities with religious belief.
@@blatherskite3009 This is a misunderstanding of Matt's position. First, the more apt analogy on self-identifcation: If a Christian calls in and identifies as a Christian; Matt does not dispute this. Second, Professor Dawkins is simply wrong about it being a binary. There is a bimodal distribution for sexual characteristics, two peaks with a very low kurtosis. We identify many sexual characteristics as the norm for male and female, but it is not all encompassing as a binary dictates. Some "women" can't reproduce; intersex people exist, etc. As it is a distribution based on expected characteristics; that means that it IS a spectrum, full stop. Third, there is no need to rely on "revelation". The available research indicates that the brain structure of androphilic trans women with early-onset gender dysphoria is closer to that of cisgender women than that of cisgender men. It also reports that gynephilic trans women differ from both cisgender female and male controls in non-dimorphic brain areas. The whole fight against "wokeism" is so full of strawmen or fueled by the fringes that it's no wonder people continue to have misinformed positions.
I like the term religoid behaviour. Like when alternative medicine and fear of food additives are symptoms of the idea that man has lost his way and needs to reconnect with nature - that is original sin right there.
Social Justice Usage Source: Roy, Laura A. Teaching While White: Addressing the Intersections of Race and Immigration in the Classroom. Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham, MD, 2018, pp. 150-151. The notion of “getting woke” (or staying woke) is defined as being acutely aware of racial and social injustice-not just awareness and acknowledgement of isolated incidents, but awareness from a position of understanding systemic and institutional racism. … The notion of getting woke encapsulates the first stage of becoming an accomplice in addressing the system of racism… White accomplices should strive to be woke enough not to call themselves woke and instead strive to embody this state of being by building with people of color. … Be in a perpetual state of learning and be woke enough to know you are never woke enough. … Source: Bunyasi, Tehama Lopez, and Candis Watts Smith. Stay Woke: A People’s Guide to Making All Black Lives Matter. New York University Press, 2019, p. 12. Just so we’re all on the same page, we should mention that having knowledge about the facts of racism and the mechanisms that (re)produce racial inequality doesn’t necessarily make someone “woke.” There are many people who know the facts and use them to insist on anti-Black narratives and pursue public policy that enhance racial inequity. Knowledge is a necessary but not sufficient component of being anti-racist. You have to put your knowledge to use in order to eradicate the problems of racial injustice. New Discourses Commentary In brief, “woke” means having awakened to having a particular type of “critical consciousness,” as these are understood within Critical Social Justice. To first approximation, being woke means viewing society through various critical lenses, as defined by various critical theories bent in service of an ideology most people currently call “Social Justice.” That is, being woke means having taken on the worldview of Critical Social Justice, which sees the world only in terms of unjust power dynamics and the need to dismantle problematic systems. That is, it means having adopted Theory and the worldview it conceptualizes. Under “wokeness,” this awakened consciousness is set particularly with regard to issues of identity, like race, sex, gender, sexuality, and others. The terminology derives from the idea of having been awakened (or, “woke up”) to an awareness of the allegedly systemic nature of racism, sexism, and other oppressive power dynamics and the true nature of privilege, domination, and marginalization in society and understanding the role in dominant discourses in producing and maintaining these structural forces. Furthermore, being woke carries the imperative to become a social activist with regard to these issues and problems, again, on the terms set by Critical Social Justice. This-especially for white people-is to include a lifelong commitment to an ongoing process of self-reflection, self-criticism, and (progressive) social activism in the name of Theory and Social Justice (see also, antiracism). Historically, the term “woke” has been used somewhat extensively in slang throughout the twentieth century to refer to a state of awareness of the discrimination, disenfranchisement, and mistreatment of blacks, especially in America, and it is in that sense always had some connection to the critical mode of thought in the New Left. (See also, black liberation, liberation theology, false consciousness, and consciousness raising.) The term is alleged to have gained its first contemporary connotation in 2008 with the Erykah Badu song “Master Teacher,” in which Badu envisions and dreams of a world of racial equality and then advises genuine activism with the admonishment that listeners should “stay woke.” The term developed from there, particularly via black activism on Twitter. The term then gained particular significance and tied itself to the contemporary Social Justice movement in the mid 2010s as it became an activist watchword of the Black Lives Matter movement. There, say following the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, the phrase “stay woke” took on the very specific meaning of being aware of the reality (according to critical race Theory) of systemic racism in American society that activists blamed for being at the root of the incident. This has, in turn, led to the term being nearly synonymous with having a critical consciousness as provided through critical race Theory, although it has been appropriated through intersectional thought to apply to other issues of identity relevant to postcolonial Theory, queer Theory, feminism, and so on. It has since expanded and memefied further and is now seen from the outside as being wholly synonymous with having been converted to a Social Justice critical consciousness. As such, “wokeness” often refers to both critical Social Justice doctrine and the state of having accepted it. In that “wokeness” has become a term directly associated with the critical consciousness provided by applied postmodern Theories, especially critical race Theory (see also, postmodern, Marxian, Neo-Marxism, Post-Marxism, and Cultural Marxism). As such, it is centrally concerned with being aware of the intersecting systems of racism, sexism, and other forms of alleged societal oppression and analyzing these in terms of privilege. This is most often done, under woke consciousness, by engaging in discourse analysis, especially using close reading, which enables racism (or other systemic bigotries) that are assumed to be present in all situations to then be read into them. This is then treated as proof of the systemic problem that was assumed to exist in the first place (see also, mask). Being “woke” would entail being able to “see” the intersecting web of dominance and oppression that arises from the function of privilege in society and taking up efforts to challenge, disrupt, subvert, deconstruct, or overthrow the existing system in the attempt to bring those unjust intersecting power dynamics to an end (see also, Matrix of Domination). See also - Critical Consciousness, Multiple Consciousness, and Kaleidoscopic Consciousness
Woke just means political correctness to an absurd or authoritarian degree. It’s sometimes used synonymously with Marxism drawn along identity politics
Woke is simply being aware of social injustice. Yes it's gone too far in some areas but we shouldn't have this polarised woke and anti woke. We all should be woke to an extent.
Correction , we all should be liberal to some extent . Being woke is a completely different thing than classic liberalism , being woke is claiming that you are either racist or actively anti racist , no in between . Similar to religions who say that if you won't follow the religion in order to go to heaven the only other option is being in hell . Woke is a dungerous and missianic ideology that devide the world into overly simplistic worldview of only oppressors and oppressed and they demege the same minorities they claim to protect by automatically accepting them to the highest most difficult universities and causing minorities to fail and lose hope of ever being a scientist , and encouraging black mothers to divorse their husbands and creating a generations of black people who grew without father and commit 55% of the crime. Being woke is claiming moral superiority while being the most immoral person and having no idea about the demege you are causing and hurting the same minorities you want to protect . Not to mention the expose of children to sex change and letting convicted rapists who claim to be a woman in the same jail as real vulnerable woman.
To be "woke" is to be beset by a totalitarian mindset that stems from a Set of Ideologies under the umbrella of Critical Theory. This Ideology-Set doesnt know any boundaries in its mission to destroy western civilization in all of its characteristics and to replace it with identitarian collectivism (and that by its own confession). The very aspects of "Woke" discussed here by Prof. Dawkins are the fundamental theses of Critical Theory, being: An amalgamation of science, morality and activism in a quasi-religious Belief system to bring about "real democracy". The reason why "Woke" would seem to be in principle a good idea, was the constant, yet eroding resistance by conservatives and true liberals over the course of the past several decades since the 70s(?) against this ideology, by reason and scientific method. This resistance slowed the process of cultural subversion for a while, so that you could get an impression of a time when there was a healthy amount of critcal consciousness. Yet, what a not ideologically driven actor in society would see as the healthy form of achieved compromises, is for the Ideologues of CT just the springboard to further the revolutionary overthrow of western civilization as an oppresive regime. F. e., as science in the eyes of the woke is just another ideological battlefield that must be subverted and subjected under their own moral vision of society, this aforementioned resistance was finally broken in our days with the progressive infiltration of educational and scientific institutions. The result is the brewing lunacy that everyone who wants to listen, see and feel can witness in all cultural aspects of society. So no, no one should be woke, especially not those, that pride themselves with a critical consciousness. Empathy and compassion are not the same as being "woke". The latter has a distinct anti-individualist, anti-reason and anti-liberal meaning to it. In short it is anti-enlightenment.
Comment regarding heresy is that when a religion or a political group or whatever achieves an ascendancy or a dominant position, it seeks to ‘draw’ the bridge up behind it in a bid to exclude competition e cause it wishes to reinforce its position. It cannot countenance competition to itself. It does not like the challenge this brings. An insecurity there . This intolerance leads to places where one would not chose . Examples abound of disasters this brings to humanity . As an advocate of a Christian world view , all that is required is to honour local authorities, pay your taxes . People need the freedom to affiliate to which group .
I have deep respect for both Dawkins and Peterson, I am grateful that people like them are around to raise their voice against this collective stupidity of so-called "wokeism"
I find Dawkins attitude towards Peterson puzzling. Peterson strikes me as a clearly competent Psychology professor - there are lectures of his online - but at the same time, he seems to be exploiting religious ideas for profit. He'll stand on stage and speak with authority on philosophy and religion, and I think the main reason some Americans just swallow that up is because he acts like a preacher, suit and all. An authority figure to latch on to. Sans that, it didn't seem to me like his philosophical ideas warrant the kind of attention he's getting. Maybe someone can enlighten me.
Well put! I usually say that science is about how nature works, while theology is about how nature "should" work. Similarly, sociology is about how society work, while gender studies are about how society "should" work.
As an individual who identifies as a libertarian with independent views, I've always found it perplexing that some far-right thinkers express indignation when individuals on the left refuse to tolerate intolerance, racism, sexism, xenophobia, and misogyny---when they know good and goddamned well they hold prejudices against these groups and talk about them pejoratively amongst themselves behind closed doors. Personally, I've had the unique experience of being a biracial man with fair features (blonde hair, blue eyes and fair skin) and the ability to pass as white in most situations (my father is white, my mother is African American and her grandmother is a direct descendant of the man who owned her family). I've been in rooms where I've heard white men openly express hatred towards blacks, Hispanics, immigrants, women, and Muslims, all while assuming I'm just another white man in the room. So it strikes me as odd that these same individuals frequently congregate under posts or discussions like this, decrying such behaviors and attempt to distance themselves from the bigotry, racism, sexism, xenophobia, and prejudice against various groups, as though they don't harbor these beliefs privately. It's almost as if they're are outwardly pretending they don't actually make critical judgments about these groups of people behind closed doors when they believe no one else is listening. Be serious. If you have these views, you should at least have the intestinal fortitude to not pretend it's not happening.
Yes, clearly the handful of closeted racists whose conversation you were privy to are the exact same people as the strangers encountered on the internet. Of course that one negative anecdote is sufficient evidence to be representative of all other possible criticism.
Oh, look! It's the "tolerant" lolbertarian who is so tolerant he only tolerates what he agrees with and that just casually, in the name of tolerance, attack white people as a collective with anti-white rhetoric! Amazin'.
Regarding the point at 6:38, I have to agree with Peterson. Dawkins seems to support a worldview that is purely materialistic, and he supposes that this worldview follows from rational thinking. However, in a purely materialistic worldview, there can be no immaterial moral commandments, which means we also have no moral obligation to be rational. All that remains are our personal desires and the power to fulfill them (a conclusion that Nietzsche articulated); any sacrifices for a non-existent greater good (whether it's God or the Goodness of Rationality) are pointless. That's what we see in 'woke culture': if a man wants to be a woman and to be recognized as such, it doesn't matter whether that's rational. All that matters for him is that he fulfills his desires. Therefore I agree with Peterson's claim that there's a logical connection between pushing the anti-religious worldview of Dawkins, and the rise of 'woke culture': not because 'we unfortunately can never beat irrationality', but because it's logically inconsistent to reject faith-based beliefs while at the same time holding the faith-based belief that one has a moral obligation to be rational.
I am probably an ignorant, or maybe it's that I don't live in the US, but I have not noticed "Woke churches", "Woke Bibles", etc. Maybe it's good to react to individual "Woke incidents" and debate them, rather than put a blanket sentence on the "Woke religion".
Sir Dawkins, will it be the woke cult that will replace Christianity and monotheism in general? With the worship of us as individuals. Can humanity live without illusions?
Challenge: If contemporary Catholicism keeps itself to itself, please explain the Dobbs decision, the product of a mostly Catholic Conservative majority. (Or are you speaking exclusively of European Catholicism?) Query: I can certainly understand the perils of semantic infiltration; but what terms, in your opinion, should the trans community use to identify themselves? Is this a case of language needing to expand (rather than contract, like the shrinking vocabulary of Newspeak) to include a greater diversity of ideas? Surely we can make space for differing perspectives without imposing ideology or torturing the meaning out of words? Thank you for your work!
Yes, while there are clear similarities between so-called 'wokeism' and religion, one has to remember that religion tries to protect fantasies with its mandates while the woke fight for individual happiness. Granted, they have their excesses but nowhere near as dangerous as religion. Richard, you've arguably helped shape generations of free thinkers. Although Jordan Peterson has some good observations, he's well on the road to full, theocratic conservatism. Some would argue he always has been. See his short series of videos calling on "the people of the book" to unite against progressives. We can see in the middle east how that would look. Jordan is not the bedfellow you want.
Dr. Peterson may be personally a Christian conservative, but he has been the forerunner of the opposition towards "woke" before society collectively even started calling it "woke." He publicly stood against compelled speech, even when the views came at great personal cost. It would be easier to be amongst the silent majority, but he had the courage to speak out. That ought to be worth something.
@@UnchainedEruption Yes, credit should be given where credit is due. It's good that he stood up when he felt he was compelled to say something he doesn't believe. The issue is that a lot of the things he stands for now are simply old, recycled conservative arguments, just repackaged in his typical forced sophistry. While Dawkins' God Delusion bravely asked people to question the values and beliefs they were indoctrinated with as children, Peterson tells "the people of the book" (the 3 Abrahamic faiths) to unite against what they perceive as evil. This is regress pure and simple, as well as advocating for tribalism.
People who say we are living in an Orwellian world haven't read any Orwell. Sure we have our problems but it isn't 1984...yet. I don't think we will ever let it get that far.
You are right. It's much, much worse than Orwell could ever possibly imagine. Orwell was not able to understand how technology would progress and with it the amount of control and tyranny it provides.
Christopher Hitchens once criticized Islam as exhibiting "the horrible trio of self-hatred, self-pity, and self-righteousness", and that's *exactly* what I see among the woke leftists these days.
