Social Justice Has Become The Left's "Non-Theistic Religion"
Social Justice Has Become The Left's "Non-Theistic Religion."It has gotten to the point where Apple CEO Tim Cook actually said not banning people form their platform would be a sin and that our internal morality is what he finds most sacred.The rules of social justice and intersectional feminism are contradictory and hypocritical. Even as Tim Cook claims to want to band certain speech his platforms sells that very speech in movies and music.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yesterday, we saw a video of Tim Cook start to go viral.
He was speaking to the Anti-Defamation League, and he said that hate, division, and violence are not welcome on their platforms.
He bragged about banning a violent conspiracy theorist.
Now, if you tell a normal person that you want to remove hate, division, and violent speech from your platform, they'll probably say, okay, that sounds reasonable.
But it becomes problematic when you start to look into the definitions of those three words.
What is division?
What is divisive?
Well, some things are and some things aren't.
Who gets to choose?
What is hate?
Who gets to decide what hate is?
And they're now saying, these activists, that words are actually violence.
Not calls to violence, not physical violence, but actually just offending someone is violence.
And if they're gonna ban that, things are getting rather worrisome.
What's interesting about the speech is that Tim Cook actually said it was a sin.
And why that's interesting?
Because it seems like intersectionality, or social justice as it's colloquially known, is becoming a non-theistic religion.
The rules don't make sense, everything is offensive, and people in power are hypocritically calling to support these rules, when in fact, Tim Cook himself supports hate speech on his own platform and has for many years.
So today, let's take a look at various examples where we can see those in power using the idea of intersectionality as a religion to control people and push for their political ideology.
But before we get started, please head over to patreon.com forward slash TimCast if you want to support my work.
I know a lot of you have been saying you want to see more on-the-ground reporting, so I am currently building a mobile studio and it could take about a month, but I could really use your support.
So head over to patreon.com forward slash TimCast if you'd like to help me out.
From NBC News, Apple CEO Tim Cook says tech needs to take a moral stand against hate speech.
You have no place on our platforms, you have no home, Cook said of people who push division and hate.
Technology companies must take a moral stand against hate speech, said Apple CEO Tim Cook on Monday during a speech at the Anti-Defamation League.
I sometimes say that I worry less about computers that think like people and more about people that think like computers, without values or compassion, without concern for consequences.
The Apple CEO had a message for anyone trying to push hate, division, or violence.
You have no place on our platforms.
You have no home, he said.
Technology companies have faced increasing pressure this year to stop acting as a vehicle for hate speech and to proactively clean up their platforms.
However, action from tech giants hasn't always been swift or decisive, and Cook admits there is still plenty of work to do.
Take, for example, the case of Alex Jones.
Apple pulled the InfoWars conspiracy theorist podcast from its platform in August, but didn't remove his InfoWars app until September.
Facebook and YouTube suspended Jones in July, but didn't ban him until August.
Twitter didn't ban InfoWars content until September.
If we can't be clear on moral questions like these, then we've got big problems, Cook said about tackling hate.
Now the reason I think Tim Cook is a hypocrite is because he's talking about a specific group of ideologies that he wants to ban.
we be? Doing what's right, creating experiences free from violence and hate, experiences that
empower creativity and new ideas, is what our customers want us to do. Now the reason I think
Tim Cook is a hypocrite is because he's talking about a specific group of ideologies that he
wants to ban. He obviously doesn't want to ban all hate speech, only speech from people he doesn't
like. And I think that can be problematic.
You must have your rules be consistent.
Because the truth is, not that long ago, Apple was called out for hosting many things which are overt hate speech, yet they don't seem to care.
There's a song by Eazy-E from 1988 called Nobody Move.
And the lyrics are so extreme I literally cannot say them on YouTube because YouTube could ban me.
I wonder then why Tim Cook allows the song to exist on Apple.
In fact, there's about four or five different versions that all pop up when you do a search.
In this song, Eazy-E talks about robbing a bank.
He then tries to force himself on a woman at gunpoint and pushes her into a back room only to discover It's actually a trans woman.
He then switches the pronouns from her to him, and then talks about using his gun to maim the individual's private parts.
This song is on iTunes.
This song is from 1988.
Now certainly, I'm not saying the song should be banned.
I don't know what they should do.
But I do find it interesting that Tim Cook wants to speak to the Anti-Defamation League when his platform hosts this kind of hate speech, but yet he will brag about banning a violent conspiracy theorist.
He's not banning hate speech.
From other individuals.
And this is just the most extreme song, because as many of you know, going back decades, there are tons of songs about people inadvertently hooking up with trans people and being rather upset about it.
But these songs all exist on iTunes, and it seems like Tim Cook doesn't actually care.
He's not being serious, or he's just a complete hypocrite.
The Daily Wire wrote the story up, but they specifically referred to his language when he says it was a sin to not ban these people.
Specifically, he said, I believe the most sacred thing that each of us is given is
our judgment, our morality, our own innate desire to separate right from wrong.
Choosing to set that responsibility aside at a moment of trial is a sin.
The choice of language was interesting to me, because we have seen James Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose, and Peter Boghossian give a speech about intersectionality as a religion.
In fact, I made a video about it yesterday, highlighting some examples.
That it seems today, the left is embracing what I would call a non-theistic religion.
I know it might be a little bit hyperbolic, but it's a set of dogmatic rules they abide by, almost as if it's religion.
And to me, it basically feels the exact same way.
For those that aren't familiar, I actually grew up Catholic, and I took issue with many of the hypocritical claims made by people around me who were religious.
Most notably, as you probably heard from many people on the left, when it came to the issue of gay marriage, you'd hear people cite Leviticus, that a man shall not lie with a man as he does a woman, it's a sin, therefore gay marriage is not acceptable.
I disagreed with that, because you certainly don't see anyone abiding by the other rules of Leviticus.
They would pick and choose which rules made sense for our society and which rules didn't, and to me, look, if you have rules, they have to be consistent, or there's no logic.
And this is what ultimately, as a young person, led me to say I don't think religion is right for me.
And I see the exact same behaviors from the regressive left.
They claim that certain things are hate speech, while absolutely putting hate speech on their platforms, Because it's only hate speech if it's against their ideology.
And we also have the example that's often touted by the left of science denial.
Sure, there are people on the right who don't agree with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change about what's going on with climate change.
They also talk about early 90s and the denial of the theory of evolution.
Well today, Quillette has a story about The left's denial of science.
Something that I've absolutely highlighted.
The new evolution deniers.
And this is written by Colin Wright, who is actually an evolutionary biologist.
Wright has a PhD in evolutionary biology, and penned this article for Quillette on November 30th, that talks about how intersectional feminists, or the regressive left, Do not believe that there are actual evolutionary reasons for the behaviors in men and women.
Saying, at first, left-wing pushback to evolution appeared largely in response to the field of human evolutionary psychology.
Since Darwin, scientists have successfully applied evolutionary principles to understand the behavior of animals, often with regard to sex differences.
However, when scientists began applying their knowledge of evolutionary underpinnings of animal behavior to humans, the advancing universal acid began to threaten beliefs held sacrosanct by the left.
The group that most fervently opposed and still opposes evolutionary explanations for behavioral sex differences in humans were our social justice activists.
Evolutionary explanations for human behavior challenge their a priori commitment to blank slate psychology.
The belief that male and female brains in humans start out identical.
And that all behavior, sex-linked or otherwise, is entirely the result of differences in socialization.
We can see a parallel to the evangelical Christians on the right from 20 or 30 years ago to the regressive left today.
And whatever your stance is, I know there are certainly going to be some people who are religious.
and oppose the social justice left for their religious reasons.
And that's kind of a mirror to the intersectionals.
But there are moderate individuals, left, center, and right, for the most part,
who do not believe in this.
When I was younger, I did meet several people who were conservative
who did not adhere to these Christian beliefs.
And I found it interesting that they'd be willing to support Republicans
who were overtly religious when they didn't actually believe in this.
They would often say that they were fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
And I wondered why they would then vote for people who would push religious values.
And they said, well, for these specific financial reasons.
And now we can probably see something similar.
Why is it that mainstream Democrats are willing to support policies that are overtly dogmatic and hypocritical?
Probably for the same reasons.
But it seems to me that the power has shifted.
There's been a lot of discussions about how the evangelical right is no longer in power and no longer relevant.
But the regressive left, the intersectionals, have been gaining power on the left.
And it seems like a parallel to what we saw only a few decades ago.
Earlier this year in the blog Atheum and the City, they wrote this article, Social Justice, The New Religion of the Left, saying traditional religious belief is dying, especially among younger generations like millennials, and the new generation below them, Gen Z. And the left in particular is jettisoning traditional religion at a phenomenal pace.
Between 2007 and 2014, disbelief in God grew among liberals from 10% to 19%, according to Pew.
While this is all music to my ears, a growing concern I share with traditionalists is what is going to replace traditional religious beliefs.
In recent years, it seems that an answer is starting to emerge.
Traditional religious belief is being replaced by social justice philosophies as religions.
Social justice is, in a way, becoming the new religion of the left.
They write, here are some of the dogmas of modern-day social justice philosophy.
Gender is a social construct.
Biological sex differences aren't real, objective things.
Sex and gender are all based on ideas from patriarchal societies.
And we know this isn't true from our PhD evolutionary biologist friend, Colin Wright, in the previous article.
There are no inherent differences between men and women.
And this plays into the social construct part.
Again, we know it's not true.
He adds, Criticizing Islam is racist.
Muslims are oppressed by Western cultures both historically and today,
and that makes them a protected class.
Islam is a religion of peace and Muhammad was a feminist.
As such, neither Islam nor Muslims can be criticized, and any such criticism is racist, bigoted, and Islamophobic.
Any claim that there's a legitimate criticism of Islam is just disguised white supremacy.
However, Islam is a religion, not a race.
And all Muslims are not, in fact, Arabic.
For instance, an important distinction when talking about Islam is that Indonesia is 87.2% Islamic.
He adds, black and brown people and women are always more oppressed.
This is obviously the idea of white privilege.
What's interesting about the idea of white privilege is that it is an inherent fault that can only be done away by joining the church of intersectionality.
It is kind of like the idea of original sin.
Once again, another parallel.
You are not allowed to talk about women's issues if you're a man or talk about racism if you're white.
And finally, if you do not want to engage in adult activities with a trans person, you are transphobic.
It is no longer acceptable to have a gender preference with whom you will have relations with unless you're gay.
Refusal to date or have relations with a trans person must be due to cis-sexist, homophobic, patriarchal, heteronormative attitudes.
Now you may be asking, well who cares if the left is being dominated by this dogma, this non-theistic religion, as I would describe it.
And I think it's fair to say it can be an issue when you're dealing with politics and actually challenging politicians, for one.
Whether you like Laura Loomer or not, she's a very contentious figure.
She was banned from Twitter for criticizing a politician.
Her specific tweet, she said, isn't it ironic how the Twitter moment used to celebrate women, LGBTQ, and minorities is a picture of Ilhan Omar.
Ilhan Omar is pro-Sharia.
Ilhan is pro-FGM.
Under Sharia, homosexuals are oppressed and killed.
Women are abused and forced to wear hijab.
Ilhan is anti-Jewish.
Ilhan Omar is an elected official.
Currently, she's a congresswoman-elect.
Laura Loomer was criticizing her.
Laura Loomer may be wrong.
By all means, Ilhan Omar may not be for these things.
But it is within Laura Loomer's right as a citizen of the United States to criticize politicians.
However, she was banned from Twitter for saying these things.
And it's funny how people just say, oh, Tim's defending Laura Loomer.
Well, hold on.
She was criticizing Louis Farrakhan in her protest, who said several antisemitic things, and is fine.
And she posted this statement, and was banned.
What that says to me, what the Apple situation says to me, is that if Tim Cook is willing to support the song Nobody Moved by Eazy-E, which talks about literally murdering a trans person, the issue isn't about whether or not you're breaking the rules, it's whether or not you're a member of the church.
If you're a member of the church, you can do no wrong.
If Louis Farrakhan says things that are horrifying to most people, Twitter will not ban him.
They actually said it wasn't a violation.
If Laura Loomer, who is not a member of their church, criticizes a politician, she will be removed immediately.
Now we can see this leftist ideology starting to move into the area of politics.
Sure, Twitter is a private platform.
If Jack Dorsey wants to ban her, that's what everyone says.
But this is about a citizen directly criticizing a politician.
What happens then when a citizen wants to challenge the political agenda of the elites?
Well, now we're hearing that could be against the rules, too.
You can actually go to jail or have your media company shut down.
From Express.
Criticizing migration could become criminal under a new plan.
The United Nations Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration seeks to make immigration a universal human right.
MEP Marcel de Graff said, I would like to say some words on the Global Compact on Migration.
On the 10th and 11th of December, there will be an international congress in Marrakech, Morocco.
The participating countries are set to sign this agreement, and although this joint agreement is not binding, it is still meant to be the legal framework on which the participating countries commit themselves to build new legislation.
One basic element of this new agreement is the extension of the definition of hate speech.
The agreement wants to criminalize migration speech.
Criticism of migration will become a criminal offense.
Media outlets that give room to criticism of migration can be shut down.
Many people have commented to me, That the regressive left, intersectionality, the social justice warriors, as it were, are not mainstream.
When in reality, they are.
Because Twitter is one of the largest social media platforms, and they have enacted rules based on this ideology.
They have banned people for criticizing politicians.
Bernie Sanders made a statement in 2016 that directly reflected the intersectional dogma.
When he said, when you're white, you don't know what it's like to be poor.
And PolitiFact said, this is false.
10.1% of white people live in poverty.
Now it is the lowest percentage-wise.
But, because there are more white people, there are actually more white poor people than some other races.
Why would Bernie Sanders say that?
Well, because the ideas are going mainstream.
They are being embraced by left-wing politicians.
And I will say it again, to me, growing up in the 90s and 2000s, seeing the evangelical Christians on the Republican side, that kind of strict dogmatic ideology is now on the left.
And I certainly won't support people who oppose reason, logic, and science.
Look, if you want to deny evolution all day and night because you don't understand what a theory is, you're free to do so.
If you want to support blank slate psychology about gender, social constructs, etc., you're also free to do so.
You're free to have those beliefs.
They should not, however, impact science, and they should not impact our policy.
Now, unfortunately, we don't have a separation of ideology and state.
We have a separation of church and state.
But so long as what the left believes is political in nature, of course it will infect politics.
We will then start seeing laws reflecting this ideology.
In an article from Intellectual Takeout, they say, And this is from two and a half years ago.
They quote psychologist Jonathan Haidt, who said, So if you organize around fighting racism, fighting homophobia, fighting sexism, again, all good things, But when they become sacred, when they become essentially objects of worship, fundamentalist religion, then when someone comes to class, someone comes to your campus, and they say that rape culture is exaggerated, they have committed blasphemy.
The reason why I highlight this is he mentions what becomes sacred.
He says, when they become sacred.
It is fascinating to see someone as powerful as Tim Cook speaking to the Anti-Defamation League about what is sacred, what is a sin, while simultaneously and hypocritically supporting hate speech on his platform.
He banned people that weren't a part of his church, but those who are kind of outside the fight.
An old song from Eazy-E, Totally Fine.
You know, we recently heard that Baby, It's Cold Outside was banned from a radio station in Cleveland.
That's fascinating.
Have they banned Eazy-E for his offensive songs?
Have they banned every other song that was considered offensive?
They haven't.
Why then do they target this specific song?
It would seem that it's entirely hypocritical.
They're not actually seeking to enforce hate speech or get rid of violence and division.
They're just trying to get rid of anything that opposes their church.
But maybe it's all a bit hyperbolic.
Maybe I'm wrong.
What do you think?
Comment below.
We'll keep the conversation going.
You can follow me on Twitter, of all places, at TimCast.
Stay tuned for more videos at 4 p.m., and I'll have more videos up on my second channel, youtube.com slash TimCastNews, starting at 6 p.m.
