Atheism as an online activist community was among the earliest communities captured by wokists back in 2012 when it was converged as "Atheism +", which meant atheism plus social justice activism. I'd be speculating as to why atheism was particularly susceptible to wokism, but I suspect it has something to do with a natural bend toward leftism (as opposition to the Christian right) and a lack of unifying ethos (centered on a negative instead of a positive, ie, disbelief in deities instead of belief in one of them). Whatever the reason, wokism completely decimated an online atheism community that had been pretty strong, replete with conferences and forums and the like. I witnessed it happen in real time. By now, most everyone understands how it plays out. Back then, it was weird. All the sudden being white and straight and male was bad in and of itself. Once a thing (organization, hobby, institution, club, bank, movie studio, you-name-it) becomes converged on social justice, it can no longer perform its primary mission. In online atheism, all talk ceased about freethought and science-based reasoning, about opposing fundamentalism and Islam, etc. That talk was replaced with cancellation witchhunts aimed at straight white males, always straight white males, and talk about how "marginalized groups"(women, gays, black, transgenders, one-legged lesbians) must be granted primacy just because. It was weird, and it decimated that community. It happens every single time. Wokism invades a healthy host, makes petty social causes the exclusive focus, and people who don't give a shit about those issues leave.
It is funny to see it continue apace with Richard Dawkins getting cancelled. Funny because now we can see it for what it is when back in 2012 it wasn't clear what was happening. Dawkins was right there in online atheism at its zenith as one of the so-called four horsemen along with Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and my favorite, the late Christopher Hitchens. Woke atheists have been trying to cancel Sam Harris for years now; they can't, though, because Harris is independently wealthy and singularly talented. Hitchens is dead and Dennett is boring, so they've been targeting Dawkins, and Dawkins is particularly weak. He's had a stroke, and he isn't what he used to be, and I don't imagine he'll be alive all that much longer, which shows you all you really need to know about these wokist humanists and their ironical dearth of humanist values: Yesterday, the American Humanist Association revoked its 1996 Humanist of the Year award it had given to Dawkins because he asked some good questions about trangenderism on Twitter. LOL.
Wokists always go after the biggest names, the people who accomplish big things. Why? I suspect it is out of jealousy, a nagging awareness that wokism is retarded and regressive and stupid and it won't accomplish anything of value ever. It destroys; it never creates. It is the most retarded, most anti-human, and most mean-spirited of all ideologies.
I love this shit, though, because trying to figure out the wokist oppression stack and its rules is fun. This was Dawkin's tweet that got his worthless humanist award revoked:
In 2015, Rachel Dolezal, a white chapter president of NAACP, was vilified for identifying as Black. Some men choose to identify as women, and some women choose to identify as men. You will be vilified if you deny that they literally are what they identify as. Discuss.
This one really riled up the woketards, who play this continual game of gaslighting about race and gender and sex. Hemant Mehta who blogs as the ironically-named "Friendly Atheist" is among the most mean-spirited liars you will ever come across, and I find his explanation about Dawkins' sins against wokeness unintentionally truthful and comical:
[Dolezal] wasn't simply vilified for identifying as Black (whatever that means) so much as lying about it to gain some kind of edge for her professional career.
Trans people, on the other hand, aren't changing genders just for the hell of it. They sure aren't doing it because it gives them some kind of advantage in society. More to the point: They don't "choose to identify" as the other gender as if some kind of light switch; they are the other gender.
Mehta, or any run-of-the-mill wokist, will tell you that race doesn't exist, that it is a social construct. They'll tell you, with a straight face, that there are no differences between people at all, that all differences are skin-deep only. Okay then, Rachel Dolezal comes along and does some good tanning and gets a hair weave so that she can pass as a light-skinned African. She takes them at their word and just switches race by identifying as black. No problem, right, if race is just a construct? You do you.
Fuck no! No, no, no, no, no. According to Mehta, Dolezal is a liar and he has no idea, no idea, what "identifying as Black" even would look like. LOL. He's mystified by it. What's going on with this, and why it infuriates the wokists so much, is that blackness is oppressed identity #1, and it is unacceptable to deconstruct it in any way whatsoever. Black is completely off-limits. Further, since it is oppressed identity #1, that anyone would willingly identify as black and assume that highly oppressed burden puts a big fat fly in the woke ointment. Wokists will predictably strike out at the idea of transracialism/transethnicity with ferocity like a rabid dog. To them, race is socially constructed and set in concrete. It's a contradiction, and don't even try to figure it out, bigot.
Sex and gender are interesting and peculiar in a wokist framework, too. Sex is immutable. One is either a sperm or an egg, not both, and you got no third option, and you can do fuck-all to change any of it. Realizing this, wokists switched to gender, which they will tell you is the social construction of sex. You're sex is male, and society expects you to play with GI Joes and dump trucks and wear pants and ties and be tough and not cry, and that is gender. So obviously, if that is gender, I can play with that and toy around with it. I'm born male, but I can wear a dress and makeup and prance around like a woman might if I want to. Nothing is stopping me. Further, I can dose myself with estrogen, grow out some tits and have my cock chopped off, and so forth, and go to extraordinary lengths to look like a someone's idea of what a women is supposed to look like. Still can't change my sex, though, only my gender presentation. Wokeists conflate sex and gender here, do a bait and switch and pretend, as Mehta does, that none of this is a choice, a direct contradiction in terms. If gender is socially constructed, one can choose to deconstruct it and reconstruct it as he or she or it wants. Doesn't really matter, and no one cares. Why do you think Mehta is so desperate to flip these terms? Sex is obviously not a choice. One can't choose his or her sex. Why does Mehta flip these terms to make gender the non-constructed thing? This bait-and-switch is what the transgender activists always do, and if you are aware of it, it is impossible to miss. It just keeps looping in on itself until you end up with some magical gender-soul essence that is both inside and outside of the material world. Again, contradictory, and don't you look to hard at it, bigot.
Dolezal does, absolutely, claim to be a black woman. Mehta calls her a liar. Okay, well obviously, but only if blackness is fixed. Only if there are definite differences, biological differences, that Dolezal can't claim because she physically can't. Dolezal has not backed down. She claims she is black. Who am I go gainsay it? Mehta has no issue doing it, though.
And so Dawkins is absolutely right, and it pisses them off to no end. If I woke up tomorrow, claimed to be a woman, changed my pronouns to she/her, wokists would indulge my newfound gender, and anyone who didn't would be vilified as bigots. Mehta would call me a woman even as I teabagged him with my huge set of testicles. LOL. But that's the level of regression and reality-denial we're dealing with here.
It is a religion, flat out. More on that soon, but for now, just read this actual statement from the American Humanist Association. Notice how this could just as easyly have come from the Onion (when it was funny) or the Babylon Bee. Wokenism is so fucking silly, it completely proves Poe's Law, that without a sufficient indicator (like a winking emoji) it is impossible to tell a satire of extremism from the real thing:
Regrettably, Richard Dawkins has over the past several years accumulated a history of making statements that use the guise of scientific discourse to demean marginalized groups, an approach antithetical to humanist values. His latest statement implies that the identities of transgender individuals are fraudulent, while also simultaneously attacking Black identity as one that can be assumed when convenient. His subsequent attempts at clarification are inadequate and convey neither sensitivity nor sincerity [Jason's Note: LOL!]
Consequently, the AHA Board has concluded that Richard Dawkins is no longer deserving of being honored by the AHA, and has voted to withdraw, effective immediately, the 1996 Humanist of the Year award.