Debate 1 of 2 - Woke/Far Left ideologies are similar to theism

31 posts / 0 new
Last post
Randomhero1982's picture
Debate 1 of 2 - Woke/Far Left ideologies are similar to theism

So I just had a few conversations with friends of late and a few things came from this debates, one being the following proposition...

The current ideological approach of the 'woke left' or far left etc... is equivalent to some of the worst theists in western countries.

A few reasons behind this are....

1. There is a group think/echo chamber of beliefs, which are not thought about critically.

2. These beliefs 'must' be followed, those who don't are personally attacked (mostly verbally).

3. Those who do not follow these beliefs are ostracized and publically ridiculed.

What are your thoughts? I didn't personally agree with the second point but I certainly agreed with the third contention.

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
Sounds more like the far

Sounds more like the far right...except they use physical methods of persuasion as well as bribery, corruption and fake news.
I reckon that labelling people and then attempting to stick behaviours at their door is fucking silly.

I am a socialist and certainly I dont exist in an echo chamber, although I think the excesses of unbridled capitalism are manifold, equally so are the excesses of communism...well, Bolshevism as the latest failed practical demonstration in the USSR.

I FIND IT HILARIOUS that the points in the OP can be equally turned to the right wing of any country. They exhibit exactly those behaviours. There is no 'broad church' of the right. Merely an uneasy coalition of the corrupt, greedy and venal.

I would rather live with free healthcare, education, state run water and energy than the examples I see even on the Easter Seaboard of my own country.

I do think politics would be better by removing one more corrupting influence....that of religion which is noted for making everything worse in any situation, whether left right or theocratic.

Randomhero1982's picture
Cheers Old Man,

Cheers Old Man,

That was one point I brought up in the meeting, it's strange that both sides are lambasting one another on the above three points and yet, both commit them.

Personally I think both the far left and the far right have taken political discourse to the gutter.

I yearn for a moderate centrist in the UK, or at least centre-left.

Alas, most are simply independents, that cannot garner the influence and backing to become a major force.

LogicFTW's picture

Curious what are your thoughts on brexit? Do you think some of the motivations behind it could be religion/control based?

I only recently began to understand that both the far left and far right have fear based, bias confirming echo chambers and this sort of "extremism" needs to be avoided and abated as much as possible.

I have always leaned "left," liberal, and more democratic (at least for the US) But even though I do I think it is important to recognize the left has its "crazies" too.

That said: The far left and far right are not the same in many other important ways, and to me, the most important:
The extreme far right is MUCH more toxic than the far left. As extreme and bad far left extremist can be, the far right extremist are much worse. And I think a big reason for that is religion the religious extremist tend to identify with far right extremist. You do not see this on the left nearly as much.

Randomhero1982's picture
Hi @Logic,

Hi @Logic,

I'm a remainer but I also respect the decisions of others and the actual result of the referendum.

I do believe that some peoples decisions may have been influenced by a plethora of reasons, certainly including religion and control.

For me, I work for a multinational seismology company and being within in the EU benefits me by being in it.

However I know people who were of the "we need stop/control immegration" ilk all the way to those who simply want more control of our own laws etc...

My main issue with my fellow remainers is that the push the narrative of "we wasnt told a no deal Brexit was an option, therefore we need another vote".

However, the vote was simple... remain in the EU or Leave... that was what was on the ballot.
Nothing about deals, whatsoever.

So I can sympathise with those who feel that their vote that won, doesn't matter anymore.

I completely agree with you, I too am left leaning and have always voted Labour or Lib Dem, but both have become horrible shadows of their former selves.

I am literally stuck with voting for independent candidates now as I feel all the main stream politicians are just stoking fires of anger in the country and pitted sides against each other.

LogicFTW's picture


Thanks for your response, sharing your personal, local, thoughts on the brexit. I rather hear from locals on the ground then from mass media.

What you think about northern Ireland? Seems to me like Northern Ireland is pretty adamant that it will remain, especially if there is a "no deal" brexit.

And if northern Ireland remains, it seems like a "hard border" between northern ireland and Ireland is not really possible due to previous conflict there. Which means as long as northern Ireland remains part of UK, there will be an "open land border" between EU and and part a small part of Britain, with probably a new "customs" border in the irish sea.

How long with a separation between northern ireland and the rest of britain like this before the the northern ireland "reunite with rest of ireland" group gain power and possibly lead to northern ireland rejoining the rest of ireland?

Is northern ireland ready to be the economic/trade no man's land in a period of indeterminate length transition away from the EU block? Especially if no deal brexit happens? (Probably won't happen simply due to how much the richest stand to lose if it did happen.)

Is the people in britain okay with the idea of increased possibility that northern ireland going back to ireland? What about the folks that live in northern ireland that want to stay a part of britain? They get to move?

Since at this point it is all but inevitable brexit been pushed back to 2020, and possibly longer because the only solution in this 3+ year running long mess is to: "kick the can down the road?" Do people eventually get to the fatigue point where they stop even caring one way or another enough to do anything about it? (Perpetual delays and infighting among politicians jockeying for position?)

Does that mean there is time for another general election to revisit the original vote? A vote that has been polled (we all know polls are not very accurate!) to go the other way this time? (britain stays in EU?) Could britain even survive such a reversal on such a contentious election result?

Oof! I realize that is a lot of questions, feel free to only answer the questions that interest you (if any!)

Randomhero1982's picture
Oh jeez, I'll try to answer

Oh jeez, I'll try to answer what I can Logic lol

This is interesting to me regarding Northern Ireland, as my mother lives there with her partner.

From what I'm told, all hell will erupt if a hard boarder is put in place and I cannot for the life of me, rationalise why this wasn't the very first key issue in negotiations with the EU.

However, it has also made me question the EU, why would you find this acceptable? I wouldn't want to personal be a member with a bloc that would actively put the UK in a position where the tensions could escalate and terror attacks may occur again.

Strangely, this is never mentioned by the mainstream media, I don't get why the EU isn't chastised for being incredibly stupid in imposing this.

Surely there are more sensible options.

Northern Ireland is torn, from what I an told and the loyalists will always want to maintain their ties with the UK... I dont know why.

Personally I was always for devolved powers and then pro independence for Scotland before they decided to stay.

I also think brexit should be treated as Scottish should be, implement the will of the people, then revisit it later.

In other words, Scotland had a referendum, pro independence lost and the will of the people was accepted.l and put into place.

Time has passed, minds have changed.. allow another vote.

Brexit should be the same, we lost... accept it. Allow a smooth Brexit deal with the option to rejoin the EU (That is the key for me) in 5 years if the people are unhappy still and this must be given another referendum.

But going back to northern Ireland, it's a sorry state of affairs that we allow ourselves the possibilities to potentially go back on the good friday agreement and a return to 'the troubles'.

My mother has already stated that she would have to move back as it wouldn't be safe for her.

LogicFTW's picture
Thanks again for your

Thanks again for your responses.

And you are right there in the thick of it, with a mother that lives in northern ireland.

I am with your mother, if I had an option to move, if a hard border was placed I would do so, even if it meant leaving family/friends behind. (I would try to assist them on moving as well.)

If enough people do the same, it could result in a massive crash for northern ireland's economy. Of course if northern ireland becomes a weird no mans land when it comes to trade oversea's commerce, the ports could be really REALLY! busy. Creating lots of jobs.

If interested, read up on Puerto Rico's history. It is sort of a "no mans land" for the US. A part of the country, but not a state, so all sorts of crazy shit happens.

David Killens's picture
Randomhero1982 your OP seems

Randomhero1982 your OP seems to involve any radical group, no matter what their beliefs or persuasion. And it doesn't matter if this is about radical left, right, social justice warriors, Antifa, the KKK, or Westboro.

They have all adopted the position that only their dogma/belief is the only correct one, and anyone who does not agree (you are with me or against me) is in the wrong, and even an enemy of their goals. And since they are definitely not the quiet majority, they are loud, shrill, and willing to openly attack anyone who does not fall in line with their position.

Randomhero1982's picture
Hi David,

Hi David,

Unfortunately it's far more mainstream then one would think.

For example in the UK, those who voted to leave during Brexit have been smeared as racists and xenophobic.

And you see in America those who in the democratic primaries that aren't in keeping with the lobby groups I.e. Tulsi Gabbard, are smeared to within an inch of their lives.

And these aren't directed by radical groups ala KKK & Westboro(but still equally shitty).

A point I made in the conversation was that unfortunately it's a successful tactic.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Randomhero1982 - And you see

Randomhero1982 - And you see in America those who in the democratic primaries that aren't in keeping with the lobby groups I.e. Tulsi Gabbard, are smeared to within an inch of their lives.

What exactly are these people being smeared with that is life threatening?

Randomhero1982's picture
That they are traitors,

That they are traitors, terrorist sympathisers, committing treason (dealing with Russia and Assad).

This is particularly dangerous given what can happen to politicians in this day and age, I.e. Jo Cox in the UK.

Nyarlathotep's picture

I'm confused by your reference to a UK politician; when the claim I cited from you was about a specific US politician.

Randomhero1982's picture
Hi Nyar,

Hi Nyar,

The point I was making was that it is troubling to see the horrible slurs and comments being made about people like Tulsi Gabbard.

Having seen the deaths of people like Jo Cox, knowing of past assassinations and attacks in the US... is it much of a stretch to be concerned something bad may happen?

Wasn't some senators attacked at a baseball game?

Nyarlathotep's picture
Randomhero1982 - The point I

Randomhero1982 - The point I was making was that it is troubling to see the horrible slurs and comments being made about people like Tulsi Gabbard.

It doesn't seem unusual to me: for members of a political party to be highly critical of a candidate who has a history of contradicting that party's platform; doubly so when the candidate is seeking the nomination of the party in question!

toto974's picture
I consider myself in the left

I consider myself in the left part of the political spectrum, but I do see positive effects in capitalism. Say what you want but the world have never been richer.

For example, the current government of my country try to poke hole in the security web, saying that it is too heavy and unwieldy. In clear, they are saying that the rather pathetic economic grow of France is due to that. Of course , this system was established when the country had a wonderful growth.

It never occurs to them that other things must be in effect to explain this moribund economy.

Sheldon's picture
I think it's dangerous to

I think it's dangerous to generalise in such a generic way. I think can be like, is a better wording than are like. Generally people use this kind of rhetoric to oppose positions that are anathema to their own. Though of course extreme viewpoints can be dangerous whatever ideology they espouse. So why single out the left?

Randomhero1982's picture
Thank you Sheldon, Some

Thank you Sheldon, Some interesting and valid points made by your good self.

I humbly admit that I presented this poorly and in hindsight I should have formatted the entire segment better.

Having a low amount free time on ny hands, as well as trying to speedily do this all from my phone, has cost me, what was meant to be just a simple question.

Again, this was simply what I took from a group I had recently joined where we discuss topics in an open forum.

Toward the end of the night we do a 30 minute discussion on various questions put forward (two of which I added on here, to get more perspective, as there are some very good thinkers on here and people who's opinions I value).

One of which was something on the lines of has the left wing in politics become akin to theological extremists that chastise anyone who disagrees and wishes to cast out those that dont fall in line.

And sure to a small degree, I agree with some of the points raised, but equally I can still call bullshit on many of the claims.

And for that matter anyone wishing to know my opinion on a topic, need only ask... I'm fairly open.

In closing, I wasn't singling out the left, merely offering something for discussion.

And my personal opinion would be, the left needs its ugly side to be shown and acknowledged, the right has had that already for 20+ years... most of us know they are arseholes.

Well, especially in England where they tend be Etonian elitist, that are so cut off from reality that they need a general surgeon to remove the silver spoon from their arses.

For me it's just sad, my grandfather who was a WW2 veteran and a member of the labour party (he was my hero, my father figure and stood for my local borough as member of parliament) was a staunch labour party member, a socialist who actually cared for people.... the current lot have destroyed this... in the UK that is.

David Killens's picture


"And my personal opinion would be, the left needs its ugly side to be shown and acknowledged, the right has had that already for 20+ years... most of us know they are arseholes."

I definitely disagree with that statement. There are different levels of engagement, from casual soft left-leaning to radicalized militant extreme left. Please do not classify all left (or all right) as being radicalized and extreme arses.

We get extremes in all positions, be it politics, economics, or military preparedness. As long as most people are willing to sit down and have a calm and rational engagement of views, we will progress. But if we throw a blanket accusation of extremism over an ideology, then communication shuts down and we have erected a barrier to communication and resolution of conflict.

Randomhero1982's picture
I definitely disagree with

I definitely disagree with that statement. There are different levels of engagement, from casual soft left-leaning to radicalized militant extreme left. Please do not classify all left (or all right) as being radicalized and extreme arses.

That is exactly what I did, perhaps it didn't come through well enough...

"And my personal opinion would be, the left needs its ugly side to be shown and acknowledged, the right has had that already for 20+ years... most of us know they are arseholes"

That very clearly states that I believe the left has an ugly side to it... I wouldn't go as far as to say extreme, but certainly they are arseholes.

The same with the right, as I said.

Many arseholes there too.

I don't see the issue... I never said 'All of the left'.
I've been fairly consistent on this.

Both sides have horrible, screeching idiots, lerking in the gutter, just wanting to impose their insane ideologies on a global scale.

Hope that is now clear.

David Killens's picture
Unfortunately Randomhero1982,

Unfortunately Randomhero1982, it appears you are in the middle of an ugly hurricane. And even then sane people start shouting too.

I live in Canada and watch the events unfold from a safe distance. I am not subject to the loud noises coming from all the different positions. But I do understand that it is not a quiet and calm discussion of positions, but rather everyone has a bullhorn, and everyone is screaming.

Meanwhile the Queen, who is paid very well to provide tradition and stability, is basically hiding away when your nation is in a true crisis. If there was ever a time for her to firmly step forward and provide the sanity and stability your nations requires, it is now.

Sheldon's picture
I think extremist views are

I think extremist views are always going to be intolerant of criticism, by their very nature. Whether it be religious or political, left or right.

Nyarlathotep's picture
OK, I admit it; I don't

OK, I admit it; I don't understand what Brexit is about. I know it has something to do with a "successful" vote to leave the EU. And failures of other votes to make the Brexit vote a reality. And deadlines that seems to come and go. Can someone tell me what is happening in the recent failure vote thingy?

/e Oh and while we are at it; why is there a table in the Parliament that looks like it has a set of encyclopedias on it? And are those actually encyclopedias?

Randomhero1982's picture
For a long time now, Britain

For a long time now, Britain has been split on retaining membership with the European union.

Some who voted leave, did so in the belief that Britain would regain sovereignty, dictate their own laws, control immigration, divert billions paid to the EU to be spent on local issues search as funding the NHS... and so on...

Some voted remain, we believed that it would be a calamitous shit show, that there would be huge repercussions, the economy would be damaged, jobs would be put at risk, that freedom of movement is a good thing, that local services like the NHS would be safer within the EU etc...

The big issue for some (mostly leave campaigners) is the majority of politicians are actually remain supporters and irregardless of how their constituencies voted, they vote in parliament with what they believe.

Furthermore, the prime minister firstly responsible for negotiating a deal, campaigned to remain and thus got a deal that never passed parliament.

However for remainers, we see that a lot of people were mislead during the campaigns prior to brexit referendum... and therefore believe a country that has more information at hand would make a different choice knowing what we know now.

It's quite the farce.

The latest delay is that PM Johnson, wished to porogue parliament in order to push through a no deal Brexit, this lost in the courts though, as it denied politicians their rights to debate the topic.

Johnson then tried to push through another terrible deal (slightly amended from Theresea May's), which too lost in a vote.

To make matters worst for those seeking Brexit, a law was passed meaning we cannot have no deal Brexit and that another delay must be called for.

So essentially, Brexit is impossible, it cannot pass a government vote and the only alternative is to remain for now.

What is most likely is a delay with the EU until a general election is called.

I hope that helps Nyar.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Who is voting these deals

Who is voting these deals down (why isn't it passing Parliament)? Do you think it is even possible to construct a deal that could pass?

What happens if it isn't possible to get anything done along the lines of Brexit? (Knowing how bureaucracies operate): what happens if nothing ever gets done?

Randomhero1982's picture
So the ruling party is the

So the ruling party is the conservative party via minority government, in coalition with the northern Ireland ruling party, The DUP.

The conservatives are trying to push through the brexit deal, but not all conservative MPs agree, despite how said MPs constituencies voted.

The DUP are opposed to the brexit deal due to the glaringly obvious back stop, boarder and customs issues.

The SNP (Scottish nationals) oppose this as, scotland on the whole voted remain, they believe to leave would oppose their peoples wishes.

The Lib Dems, Greens and Cyrmu(Welsh national) all oppose Brexit fiercely, demanding another referendum at bare minimum and the labour shadow government (main rivals to conservatives, obviously oppose as is standard.

I don't think the EU would ever give the sort of concessions that would make any brexit deal viable to the opposition parties.

What it would take is a strong leader and a brand new negation from scratch that would be strong and forward... making clear demands, I.e. the northern ireland boarder issue.

I think they'll keep pushing delays until either...
The government gives up and remains, or another referendum is called.

Personally I think they should just have a general meeting in parliament, agree that they will not pursue any further negotiations, as theyll never get a satisfactory outcome and come to an agreement that the conservatives will delay until a general election is due... so they may as well bring it forward to as soon as possible.

Sheldon's picture
Can article 50 even be

Can article 50 even be revoked now?

I'm also not sure a second referendum sends the right message. Simply having referendums until we get the result we want suggests the process was pointless in the first place.

I voted to remain, but if we're coming out let's get it done. Norway and Switzerland are two countries that trade within the EU and are not members of the EU.

There are pros and cons on both sides of the BREXIT debate, obviously or the decision would be easy, but leaving needn't be a disaster for the economy long term, quite opposite. The problem is I'm 54 and was working towards early retirement, so BREXIT might impact that, though that's a moot point now for other reasons.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Sheldon

@ Sheldon

Article 50 can be revoked anytime by Parliament.

Norway and Switzerland are both members of the Customs Union, the Schingen Treaty and the other conditions that allow free movement, adhere to EU court rulings and regulations especially regarding workers rights. They both contribute (without a vote), to the EU coffers.

The most recent rush to Brexit is caused not by the referendum but by the EU regulations that in January 2020 latest require each and every citizen and corporation to declare all funds and assets in offshore havens....go figure why Boris and Co want to get out before then ....

Boris and his chinless pals want to make Engerland "Caymans on the Thames...." they dont give a blue fuck about their population, the working conditions of ordinary people or anything else except their own power and privilege.

Brexit is the sure break up of the UK...Scotland first and I will be surprised if Wales will continue to be content to be the poor man of Englandish Empire for long.

Boris is doing what Hitler could not.

Sheldon's picture
Yes it's true that Norway and

Yes it's true that Norway and Switzerland generally introduce EU legislation in an ad hoc fashion to enable ontinued trading within the EU. Though in reality this means most EU legislation is incorporated into their own.

Norway contribute around two thirds of what the UK pays per head of population, before money comes back. Comparing payments after money comes back is difficult, but seems to narrow the gap still further.

If the UK joined the EEA after it leaves the EU, there would be some financial savings. As there would be some scope for negotiation on exactly how much the UK would have to pay. However, it's true there would still be significant financial costs.

As a full member the UK contributes directly to the EU central budget, aroud £14 billion. The size of its contribution is based on the size of its economy and its VAT income. However Norway doesn't, they (Norway) contribute to EU programmes they are involved in, and give out grants, roughly half that at £740 million.

Again the figures from a direct comparison are not easy to estimate,

However the House of Commons Library has estimated that, assuming that Norway didn’t get a lot back, imitating its relationship with the EU would make the UK’s contribution to the EU per head about 25% smaller. The think tank Open Europe says that the saving per head would be more like 12%.

Switzerland has a series of treaties with the EU to be in parts of the single market, and also makes grant payments. Which of course the UK might have to do depending on how much we want to CONTINUE trading with the EU.

As I said I voted remain, as the short term risk of leaving, given I'm 54 seemed the greater of two evils.

I'm not sure what Scotland's GDP is, but Wales would be properly fucked on it's own, at least in the short term. Theres plenty wrong with both the UK and the EU, but on the whole I'd say Wales is better of as part of both.

As for revoking article 50, the EU Commission On 29 March 2017, stated "It is up to the United Kingdom to trigger Article 50. But once triggered, it cannot be unilaterally reversed. Notification is a point of no return.

So such a scenario would invalidate a public referendum, risky enough for any government, and of course would need the EU's collaboration, and patience with BREXIT and the UK government is not exactly at a premium, though who really knows.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Sheldon

@ Sheldon

Yep you are right in part, note both Norway and Switzerland contribute without being able to vote on the direction or destination of their funding....The worker legislation and judgements of the EU Supreme Court are immediately incorporated into Norwegian Law that is part of their conditions of membership...Switzerland has a little wriggle room by delaying financial legislation/regulation only, but it has to pass....but can be delayed by 24 months. The price of the membership and security.

Revocation of article 50: On the other hand, the constitutional lawyer and retired German Supreme Court judge Udo Di Fabio has stated that

The Lisbon Treaty does not forbid an exiting country to withdraw its application for leaving, because the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties prescribes an initial notification procedure, a kind of period of notice. Before a contract under international law [such as the Lisbon Treaty], which had been agreed without specifying details of giving notice, can be effectively cancelled, it is required that the intention to do so is expressed 12 months in advance: in this matter there exists the principle of preserving existing agreements and international organisations. In this light, the declaration of the intention to leave would itself be, under EU law, not a notice of cancellation.
Separate negotiations of the EU institutions with pro-EU regions [London, Scotland or Northern Ireland] would constitute a violation of the Lisbon Treaty, according to which the integrity of a member country is explicitly put under protection.

On the second paragraph (lawyers can decide the first) when the UK leaves the Union then Scotland can, indeed, negotiate its own future with the EU, Wales and the Bretons have been making unification noises for some 50 years, it would not take much more of Boris and his odious ilk to push them into a weld. I am sure France would be laughing its socks off to see that happen...and would probably finance it.

Don't forget the Cornish are making noises again....

Engerland is destined, if leave on Boris's terms happens, to be reduced to the same circumstance of most offshore, pirate regimes. Ruled by extreme wealth and privilege with a poverty stricken exploited mass under their boots. Double trouble....

That's what happens when you have the Eton Schools of this world. I wonder where the hard border between Scotland and Little Engerland would be? Where it is; or would Northumbria come to its senses once more?...yeh, I know my history is showing....

Cognostic's picture
A portmanteau of the words

A portmanteau of the words “Britain” and “exit,” Brexit is shorthand for Britain’s split from the European Union, changing its relationship to the bloc on trade, security and migration.

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.