I think the rise of social media, and its vast ability to strip comments/speech of context and so enable dogpiling/offence/etc, has caused a huge rise in personal attacks for "problematic" statements.

I have personal conversations offline with people where we can discuss controversial topics without anyone taking offence or "calling out". I have learned to avoid any such topics on social media because of the social consequences. I know many others who do the same: simply avoid certain topics online.

I'm old enough to remember how we were before the internet, too. It wasn't like this. Discussions were more interesting and less fraught. People had a wider range of opinions on everything. At least, that's how I remember it.

There may be an increase in off the cuff rudeness to people you are unlikely to meet, as the internet makes that so much easier with fewer immediate consequences, but (at least here in the UK) we do not have anywhere near the same level of serious personal attacks. You might be more likely to encounter someone on the internet who is willing to be rude to you for your opinion, but you are much less likely to meet someone on the street that is willing to beat you up for it.

Shut it, bignose.

It's not social media per se, it's the authorities or people in power.

10 or even 5 years ago, you could have debates on every controversial topic online from abortion to atheism to lgbt to healthcare. In comment threads you would literally see every side of the debate. But something happened fairly recently where social media got weaponized for political reasons. And "blasphemy laws" got established on social media platforms. What's interesting is that the same "blasphemy laws" are on every platform as if a pope or an authority figure sent out a decree that everyone had to obey.

Now there are even well funded "hit squads" to attack or shame people for wrongthink. But I think their time is coming to an end because more and more people are getting tired of censorship.

I think the secular folks in these threads must not see the modern secular analogs to blasphemy, penance, indulgences, and purity. Misguided virtue signalling boycotts and all!

As someone who is pretty secular, why do you think we must not?

I mean, I've posted a couple of John Gray links here and it would be difficult to have read anything of his without having spent at least a little time thinking about the secular analogs to religious practices, as that is one of his major themes.

Because if you really thought about it, you'd realize that you have so much in common with the religious zealots of old (and be so horrified by this) that you'd have to go home and completely re-think your belief system. In the 21st century, people want to believe that they have nothing in common with the Spanish Inquisition.... "Put her in the comfy chair!".

>"Because if you really thought about it, you'd realize that you have so much in common with the religious zealots of old (and be so horrified by this) that you'd have to go home and completely re-think your belief system."

You've just successfully described one of my main hobbies. As far as any secular tradition goes, I am firmly in the Diogenes camp.

i followed your reasoning until you said that you think "their time is coming to an end." IDK. i don't see much evidence of that.

like elements of the crowd that wants to stone a woman for adultery, we're all itching to chuck a rock or two, not so much because we love violence or hate the woman, but because we're afraid someone more powerful will accuse us of failing to throw a stone and we ourselves will become the next target. i don't see any Jesus on the horizon to stop it.

I think it's caused by the rise of advertising as a funding source for these companies. To maximize profits, they have to make sure that nothing appears on their platforms that will piss off the advertisers. This combined with "engagement" as the metric of success.

So they want things that will anger as many users as possible, so that they will stay on the platform and share the outrage with their friends, but not so outrageous the advertisers will leave.

I don't think this is going to end well.

>So they want things that will anger as many users as possible, so that they will stay on the platform and share the outrage with their friends, but not so outrageous the advertisers will leave.

Also known as the 'Daily Mail' strategy. (Which admittedly has had a slight change in tone recently what with the editor being changed for someone very slightly less mental after Lady Rothermere got bored of being teased at parties)

Every salient point concerning social agency and individual responsibility made by Monty Python in "Life of Brian" as well as most of their other films, can be validated by the manifestations of social media.

We are, literally, living the Monty Python moments which resonate so well.

All it takes to demonstrate this is a brief moment of pause before you hit the upvote or the downvote button.

Beyond that point, we are all made of wood and weigh the same as a duck.

> All it takes to demonstrate this is a brief moment of pause before you hit the upvote or the downvote button.

WOW, that was well phrased.

As far as progress goes, I kinda agree with John Gray - https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/qbwqem/john-gray-intervie...

To be honest, that article is a bit of a fluff piece, his essay in the New Statesman on the subject puts his point across better. - https://www.newstatesman.com/node/148940

He has a lot of valid points ("we outsourced the slavery and pollution") but he somehow likes religions more than atheism, which is definitely inconsistent: he recognizes the "false beliefs" in the everyday Western world (keeping the eyes closed about the mentioned "outsourcing"), but then avoids to treat the same the religions which obviously can't all be true. Only atheism is consistent with the existence of all other religions (simply claiming that it's the humans who invented various mutually conflicting stories about one or more "deities"). He also claims that the atheism "is a religion" which is by definition false: "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."

Moreover, the changes brought by enlightenment were actually revolutionary and immense. But what is his correct observation is that no rights are fixed and that the most of the humans who have them now can as well lose them fast.

> But it has value in exploring questions and aspects of humanity that we are not able to understand with reason.

I don't think this claim stands up to much scrutiny.

Sure - religion is interesting from a historical perspective. "Why do we think the way we do" for example. Or "how did we grapple with problem X before we discovered Y..."

But religion doesn't offer some unique perspective or insight we don't otherwise have access to.

In fact, it stops us exploring questions we don't yet understand. Because (organised) religion claims to have the answers. That's what makes it so dangerous.

And, as Christopher Hitchens used to say, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to support them"...

I think a good example is human rights. Remember, these started out as natural, or god-given rights. We all know what the world looks like without them. All the ultra-rational, anti-religious political economies of the first half of 20th century were hells on earth. You cant come to reasonable arguments for human rights without faith in some belief in natural good, dignity or humanity.

>> You cant come to reasonable arguments for human rights without faith in some belief in natural good, dignity or humanity.

> We can, and we did.

> The US constitution for example, is explicitly secular.

The US Constitution is a plan of government amended with a listing of human rights. In its original form it left those rights entirely unenumerated. It's an odd argument to claim that it forms any kind of basis for those rights when that basis is clearly elsewhere.

Look at the animal kingdom and you’ll see a natural world full of death, rape, and violence with no basis in religion. If we’re animals that’s the baseline. By using the word atrocity you’re buying in to some definition of evil that has to come from a philosophical belief system, ie a faith, which could be directed toward God, the future of humanity, logic, a flat earth, or literally anything else.

> Look at the animal kingdom and you’ll see a natural world full of death, rape, and violence with no basis in religion.

True (although amongst some species no higher than our own, so not sure what point that proves).

> By using the word atrocity you’re buying in to some definition of evil that has to come from a philosophical belief system, ie a faith, which could be directed toward God, the future of humanity, logic, a flat earth, or literally anything else.

I don't know that you can believe in logic or the future of humanity.

Definitely not in the same way people believe in God.

As for where morality/our basis for human rights comes from if not from religion, Richard Dawkins explains best (in ~5min) how the source most probably isn't belief/faith/religion in this video --> (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XtvWkRRxKQ).

This is the video that explains the best how the "morality" is natural even in the capuchin monkeys:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg

So, no to those that claim that, humans aren't special, and no, the good sides of morality don't come from religion, especially not from the modern ones with a "jealous" god (killing homosexuals, or punishing women when not wearsing something, however, if that is considered "morality", indeed provably does come from religion).

The whole talk:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcJxRqTs5nk