Michael Shellenberger Profile picture
Nov 11, 2021 54 tweets 8 min read Read on X
When does a political ideology become a religion? When it comes to rely upon easily debunked myths and supernatural beliefs.

Here's why Wokeism is a Religion

michaelshellenberger.substack.com/p/why-wokeism-…
Special bonus: Woke Religion: A Taxonomy

Co-authored with @peterboghossian
Over the last year, a growing number of progressives have pointed to police killings of unarmed black men, rising carbon emissions and extreme weather events, and the killing of trans people as proof that the US has failed to take action on racism, climate change, and transphobia
Others have pointed to the war on drugs, the criminalization of homelessness, and mass incarceration as evidence that little has changed in the U.S. over the last 30 years.

And yet, on each of those issues, the U.S. has made significant progress.
- Police killings of black Americans declined from 217/year in the 1970s to 157/year in the 2010s.

- Between 2011 and 2020, CO2 emissions declined 14% in the US, more than in any other nation

- Just 300 people died from disasters, a 90+% percent decline over the past century.
- Public acceptance of trans people is higher than ever
- Total prison & jail population peaked in 2008 and has declined significantly ever since
- Just 4% of state prisoners (87% of total prison pop.), are in for nonviolent drug possession; just 14% for nonviolent drug offenses
Progressives respond that these gains obscure broad inequalities, and are under threat. Black Americans are killed at between two to three times the rate of white Americans, according to a Washington Post analysis of police killings between 2015 and 2020.
Carbon emissions are once again rising as the U.S. emerges from the covid pandemic, and scientists believe global warming is contributing to extreme weather events.
In 2020, Human Rights Campaign found that at least 44 transgender and non-gender conforming people were killed, which is the most since it started tracking fatalities in 2013, and already that number has reached 45 this year.
Drug prohibition remains in effect, homeless people are still being arrested, and the U.S. continues to have one of the highest rates of incarceration in the world.
But those numbers, too, obscure important realities. There are no racial differences in police killings when accounting for whether or not the suspect was armed or a threat (“justified” vs “unjustified” shooting).
While carbon emissions will rise in 2021 there is every reason to believe they will continue to decline in the future, so long as natural gas continues to replace coal, and nuclear plants continue operating.
While climate change may be contributing to extreme weather events, neither the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change nor another other scientific body predicts it will outpace rising resilience to cause an increase in deaths from natural disasters.
Researchers do not know if trans people are being killed disproportionately in comparison to cis-gender people, if trans homicides are rising, or if trans people are being killed for being trans, rather than for some other reason.
Twenty-six states have decriminalized marijuana. California & Oregon have decriminalized and legalized, respectively, the possession of all drugs.
Progressive District Attorneys in San Francisco, Los Angeles and other major cities have scaled back prosecutions against people for breaking many laws related to homelessness including public camping, public drug use, and theft.
And yet many Americans would be surprised to learn any of the above information; some would reject it outright as false.
Despite the decline in police killings of African Americans, the share of the public which said police violence is a serious or extremely serious problem rose from 32 to 45 percent between 2015 and 2020.
Despite the decline in carbon emissions, 47 percent of the public agreed with the statement, “Carbon emissions have risen in the United States over the last 10 years,” and just 16 percent disagreed.
Meanwhile, 46 percent of Americans agree with the statement, “Deaths from natural disasters will increase in the future due to climate change” and just 16 percent disagreed, despite the absence of any scientific scenario supporting such fears.
And despite the lack of good evidence, mainstream news media widely reported that the killing of trans people is on the rise.
The gulf between reality and perception is alarming for reasons that go beyond the importance of having an informed electorate for a healthy liberal democracy.
Distrust of the police appears to have contributed to the nearly 30% rise in homicides after the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests last year, both by embolding criminals and causing a pull-back of police.
A growing body of research finds that news media coverage of climate change is contributing to rising levels of anxiety and depression among children.
And there's good reason to fear that misinformation about the killing of trans and non-gender conforming individuals contributes to anxiety and depression among trans and gender dysphoric youth.
Why is that? Why does there exist such a massive divide between perception and reality on so many important issues?

Part of the reason appears to stem from the rise of social media and corresponding changes to news media over the last decade.
Social media fuels rising and unwarranted certainty, dogmatism, and intolerance of viewpoint diversity and disconfirmatory information. Social media platforms including Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram reward users for sharing information popular with peers...
... particularly extreme views, and punish users for expressing unpopular, more moderate, and less emotional opinions. This cycle is self-reinforcing. Audiences seek out views that reinforce their own.
Experts seek conclusions, and journalists write stories, which affirm the predispositions of their audiences. It may be for these reasons that much of the news media have failed to inform their audiences that there are no racial differences in police killings...
...., that emissions are declining, and that claims of rising trans killings are unscientific.

Another reason may be due to the influence of well-funded advocacy organizations to shape public perceptions, particularly in combination with social media.
Organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union, Human Rights Campaign, and Drug Policy Alliance have misled journalists, policymakers, and the public, about police killings, drug policy, and trans killings, often by simply leaving out crucial contextual information.
The same has been true for climate activists, including those operating as experts and journalists, who withhold information about declining deaths from natural disasters, the cost of disasters relative to GDP growth, and declining U.S. emissions.
But neither of these explanations fully captures the religious quality of so much of the progressive discourse on issues relating to race, climate, trans, crime, drugs, homelessness, and the related issue of mental illness.
A growing number of thinkers use the word “woke” to describe the religiosity of so many progressive causes today.

In his new book, Woke Racism, Columbia University linguist John McWhorter argues that Wokeism should, literally, be considered a religion.
As evidence for his argument McWhorter points to commonly held myths, like the debunked claim that the American War of Independence was fought to maintain slavery, or that racial disparities in educational performance are due to racist teachers.
He points to Woke religious fervor in seeking to censor, fire, and otherwise punish heretics for holding taboo views. And McWhorter suggests that, because Wokeism meets specific psychological and spiritual needs for meaning, belonging, and status...
... pointing out its supernatural elements is likely to have little impact among the Woke.

But just because an ideology is dogmatic and self-righteous does not necessarily make it a religion, and so it is fair to ask whether Wokeism is anything more than a new belief system.
There is no obviously mythological or supernatural element to Woke ideology, and its adherents rarely, if ever, justify their statements with reference to a god, or higher power. But a deeper look at Wokeism reveals a whole series of mythological and supernatural beliefs...
They include the idea that white people today are responsible for the racist actions of white people in the past; that climate change risks making humans extinct; and that a person can change their sex by simply identifying as the opposite sex.
While reading McWhorter’s new book, I was surprised to discover many similarities between woke racism and apocalyptic environmentalism, which in Apocalypse Never I describe as a religion.
Each offers an original sin as the cause of present-day evils (e.g., slavery, the industrial revolution). Each has guilty devils (e.g., white people, “climate deniers,” etc.) sacred victims (e.g., black people, poor islanders, etc.) and what McWhorter calls “The Elect” ...
...or people self-appointed to crusade against evil (e.g., BLM activists, Greta Thunberg, etc.). And each have a set of taboos (e.g., saying “All lives matter,” criticizing renewables, etc.) and purifying rituals (e.g., kneeling/apologizing, buying carbon offsets, etc).
I also saw parallels between woke racism, apocalyptic environmentalism, and victimology, which in San Fransicko I describe as a religion complete with the metaphysical view that people can be categorized as victims or oppressors, by nature of their identity or experience.
I reached out to a new friend, Peter Boghossian, a philosopher who recently resigned his post at Portland State University in response to Wokeist repression, and other experts in different Woke movements, and together we constructed a Woke Religion Taxonomy (below).
It includes seven issue areas (Racism, Climate Change, Trans, Crime, Mental Illness, Drugs, and Homelessness) covered by Woke Racism, Apocalypse Never, San Fransicko, Peter’s research, and the writings of other critics of Wokeism.
It cuts across 10 categories (Original Sin, Guilty Devils, Myths, Sacred Victims, The Elect, Supernatural Beliefs, Taboo Facts, Taboo Speech, Purifying Rituals, Purifying Speech)

We were surprised by how easy it was to fill in each category, and by the fascinating similarities.
We decided to publish the Woke Religion Taxonomy because it was helpful to our own understanding of Wokeism as a religion, and we felt it might help others. The Taxonomy identifies common myths and supernatural beliefs and helps explain why so many people continue to hold them...
..., despite overwhelming evidence that they are false. We are under no illusion that the Taxonomy will reduce the power that Wokeism holds over true believers. But we also believe it will help orient those who are confused by its irrationalism, and are seeking an overview.
Finally, we recognize that we might be wrong, either about matters of fact or classification, and hope it will encourage a healthy debate. As such, we have published it with the caveat that it is “Version 1.0” with the expectation that we will revise it in the future.
Both Peter and I would like to stress that we have published the Taxonomy in service of the liberal and democratic project of social and environmental progress, which we believe to be under threat from Wokeism.
We believe the U.S. is well-positioned to reduce police killings, crime, and carbon emissions; protect the lives and the mental health of trans, non-gender conforming, and cis-gender people; and better treat of the mentally ill and drug addicted.
But doing so will require that Wokeism weaken its grip over the American psyche.

As Peter writes, “bigotry and racial discrimination are real and they have no place in society. Yes, there is ongoing racism. Yes, there is ongoing homophobia...
... Yes, there is ongoing hatred of trans people. These are morally abhorrent and we all need to work together to bring about their end. The woke religion, however, is not the way to stop these moral horrors. It is making our shared problems more difficult to solve.”
Woke Religion: A Taxonomy v1

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Michael Shellenberger

Michael Shellenberger Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @shellenberger

May 13
In 2021, the UK government said it had not weaponized the Army's "information warfare" unit, the 77th Brigade, against the British people. But it had. Thus, it lied.

Now, newly released and never-before-reported documents show that the UK government mislabeled accurate information as "malinformation" and sent defamatory misinformation to the US government.

How did the Army get away with it?

According to a new whistleblower from the 77th Brigade, it was by having soldiers pretend that the British citizens upon whom they were spying could, perhaps, be foreigners.

Most disturbing of all, newly obtained minutes from the UK government’s “Disinformation Board” show that senior UK officials considered embedding civil servants in social media companies.

Was that also the intention of the Biden Administration’s near-identically named “Disinformation Governance Board” of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)?

Bombshell new reporting by @JHurfurt from @BigBrotherWatchImage
UK Government Used Army “PsyOps” Division To Monitor Citizens And Then Lied About It

British military officials also spread misinformation to the US, treated domestic victims of their spying as foreigners, and considered embedding government censors within social media companies

by @JHurfurt
British Army General Sir Nicholas Carter leaves number 10 Downing Street in central London on March 12, 2020, as a COBRA meeting on the government's response to the novel coronavirus COVID-19 outbreak takes place. (Photo by ISABEL INFANTES/AFP via Getty Images)

In January 2021, the UK government said that members of its infamous “77th Brigade do not, and have never, conducted any kind of action against British citizens.”

But it did. And thus, it lied.

In 2022, the NGO I work for, Big Brother Watch, began investigating the UK government's efforts to monitor social media posts and demand their censorship by the platforms. Over the next few months, we filed dozens of Freedom of Information requests, including for information on the 77th Brigade.

In other words, we discovered that the UK government had spread disinformation in the name of fighting misinformation.

The Army unit was not just involved in “countering misinformation,” it led the effort. The 77th Brigade monitored social media platforms throughout 2020 and worked alongside soldiers from the Royal Air Force (RAF).

The British Ministry of Defense (MoD) did not respond to requests to comment for this piece.

MoD created the 77th Brigade in 2015 to serve as its “information warfare” or “psychological operations” unit. The 77th Brigade would consist of “a new generation of ‘Facebook warriors’ who will wage complex and covert information and subversion campaigns,” reported the Financial Times in 2015.

When the Army created the 77th Brigade, its leaders told British Members of Parliament (MPs) that its job was to “build stability overseas,” not spy on citizens at home.

How did the UK military evade the ban on spying on UK citizens? A whistleblower from the 77th Brigade, who spoke to Big Brother Watch on condition of anonymity, said it did so by pretending that the British citizens who UK soldiers were spying upon could, perhaps, be foreigners

“To skirt the clear legal issues with a military unit monitoring domestic dissent,” the whistleblower told us, “the leading view was that unless a profile explicitly stated their real name and nationality, which is, of course, vanishingly rare, they could be a foreign agent and were fair game to flag up.”

By “flag up,” the whistleblower referred to the process by which UK government officials sent content to social media companies that they thought should be censored.

As in the United States, UK government officials insist that the flagging of social media content by officials was legal because the officials were just making suggestions, not demanding censorship.

But Facebook’s oversight board said in 2022 that government demands for censorship are hard to ignore.

And during a 2022 House of Commons debate on the UK’s Orwellian-titled “Online Safety Act,” then-Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries told MPs that the CDU was in “daily” contact with social media firms as part of work to remove content.

There are now many instances where social media companies said they only censored because the US government had asked them to. Just last week, a US Congressman revealed that, on July 16, 2021, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg texted his colleaguesand noted that “the [Biden] WH put pressure on us to censor the lab leak theory…”

Now, exclusive documents obtained by Big Brother Watch and revealed for the first time here show that UK government officials labeled accurate reporting from a Guardian journalist, Jennifer Rankin, that the UK would not take part in the EU’s PPE procurement scheme as “malinformation.”

And newly obtained minutes from the UK government’s “Disinformation Board” show that senior UK officials considered embedding civil servants in social media companies. Was that also the intention of the Biden Administration’s near-identically named “Disinformation Governance Board” of the Department of Homeland Security?

What exactly happened in the UK? Why did the UK military violate its promise not to spy on the British people?

On Her Majesty’s Secret Censorship
British Army General Sir Nicholas Carter leaves number 10 Downing Street in central London on March 12, 2020, as a COBRA meeting on the government's response to the novel coronavirus COVID-19 outbreak takes place. (Photo by ISABEL INFANTES/AFP via Getty Images)

In its 2015 article about the 77th Brigade, the FT wrote that its soldiers would “use a range of activities to make adversaries do what they want them to do — a technique known as reflexive control. Among their weapons will be social media campaigns on Twitter and Facebook, spreading disinformation or exposing truths in war zones, ‘false flag’ incidents — which are designed to fool people into thinking they were carried out by someone else — and intelligence gathering.”

The UK officials said the unit was inspired by information warfare in Ukraine. “The undercover activities of Russia’s “little green men” in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, as well as the Kremlin’s extensive cyber and information warfare campaign in the country, have prompted worry throughout NATO’s military commands over how to combat such tactics.”

Starting in 2020, an interwoven network of “counter disinformation teams” monitored and sought to censor disfavored views. The names of the various UK government agencies tasked with censorship are confusing, anodyne, and unmemorable—perhaps by design....Image
Image
Please subscribe now to support Public's investigative journalism exposing the global Censorship Industrial Complex and to read the rest of the article!

Image
Image
Read 7 tweets
May 12
Kids need computers in their classrooms, claimed @BillGates. But they didn't. In fact, the evidence is now overwhelming that they hinder learning. Many high-tech execs know this and send their own kids to schools that rely on paper and pencils. Schools need to go back to basics. Image
Big Tech Hubris And Greed Behind Digital Education Failure

It’s time to go back to paper and pencil

by Denise Champney
Bill Gates, then-Chairman of Microsoft, works with student Eli Philippe at Booker T. Washington High School's computer lab on July 9, 2001 in Miami, Florida. Gates was at the school to announce a series of grants totaling more than $1 million in computer technology and services to South Florida schools to support technology enrichment and create opportunities for teens in underserved communities. (Photo by Jeff Christensen/Getty Images)

In 2010, the US Department of Education released its ambitious National Educational Technology Plan, setting a goal to transform the future of education through technology. In many ways, this vision has now been realized. Today, students across the country use computers to learn English, Math, Science, and History. Tech companies and curriculum developers claim that this is helping them. Personal devices and digital platforms, they say, increase student engagement and have huge educational benefits.

Yet in my experience as a speech-language pathologist, digital programs are ineffective and distracting for kids.

I recently asked a 5th-grade student to show me how he uses My Path, an individualized math program through Curriculum Associates iReady Math. This student has a diagnosis of ADHD and is a struggling reader. Although he understood the math concept the program presented to him, he had trouble solving problems because of the presentation on a screen. Using a computer for math increased his ADHD tendencies, impacted his reading, and caused him to become so frustrated that he impulsively clicked and swiped. He would have had far less difficulty if he’d been given the same problems on paper.

To be sure, technology has a role in the classroom. Students must develop digital literacy and digital skills. Tech tools can also be used for enrichment and advanced instruction.

But this student is not the only child who struggles to learn from a computer. The optimistic vision of technology in education from 2010 does not match the realities of 2024. If you walk through the halls of a high school or middle school (and sadly some elementary schools), rather than the fantasy of students enthusiastically engaging in self-directed learning, you’ll instead see many students in a zombie-like stance staring at a Chromebook or laptop opened in front of them while only half listening to the teacher.

“It would be great if our education stuff worked. But that we won’t know for probably a decade,” billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates said about his edtech initiatives in 2013.

In truth, over a decade later, it’s clear that this “education stuff” has not worked at all. Despite billions spent, test scores have declined since then, and mental health issues among teens have risen.

Some K-12 curriculum developers, such as McGraw Hill, claim their digital programs are supported by research. Yet they often use small sample sizes, do not include control groups, and admit that their results have major limitations. Other studies from RAND are funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which has invested tens of millions of dollars in personalized programs.

The best available evidence shows that excess technology is detrimental to learning and development. An increasing amount of research demonstrates that screens have a negative impact on reading comprehension.

One study published last year suggests that cognitive engagement is higher in children when reading printed books versus digital media. Another such study in 2018 found that there was higher functional connectivity in the brain when reading from print versus a decrease while reading from a screen. And yet another research review highlights, “Paper-based reading yields better comprehension outcomes than digital-based reading.”

Other studies reveal the harms of screen time on brain development. More alarmingly, new research shows changes in brain structure of children with higher screen time use. There may be a physiological and psychological effect as well. One research review found, “Excessive digital media use by children and adolescents appears as a major factor which may hamper the formation of sound psychophysiological resilience.”

A United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) report released in 2023 provides an in-depth evaluation of technology in education. The findings are mixed, but one that stands out is that “There is little robust evidence on digital technology’s added value in education.”

In my experience as a professional trained to work with struggling students, most children’s developing brains are not equipped to engage in the self-directed learning imagined years ago, especially online. As a result, students multitask and divert their attention to popular games such as Roblox or streaming videos off YouTube and Netflix while simultaneously completing assignments, degrading their capacity to learn.

Tech developers are skilled at designing their products to keep kids using them while maximizing profits. Tristan Harris, former Google employee and Co-Founder of the Center for Humane Technology, describes this as the race to the bottom of the brain stem. Since classrooms inundate kids with access to technology throughout the day, their precious attention is constantly being robbed.

The evidence against screen time is strong enough that executives with ties to Big Tech and edtech often send their own kids to private schools that don’t use technology.

So, how did we go from the promise of self-directed learning with unlimited information at our fingertips to what we see now, impacting an entire generation of kids? Many point to virtual learning due to Covid-19 as the time when technology took over and student achievement levels dropped. But those paying attention saw the insidious technology creeping in long before then...Image
Image
Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative journalism and to read the rest of the article!

Image
Image
Read 4 tweets
May 1
@JamesOKeefeIII @CIA @NSAGov Multiple credible sources told us that the CIA asked foreign allies to spy on 26 Trump associates:

@JamesOKeefeIII @CIA @NSAGov Credible sources say the U.S. government is hiding a binder of documents because they incriminate the intelligence community for illegal spying and election interference:

@JamesOKeefeIII @CIA @NSAGov Sources say the CIA "cooked the intelligence" to hide that Vladamir Putin wanted Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump, as president:

Read 5 tweets
May 1
Most people think they understand the meaning of free speech but recent events show that many don’t. People have the right to say hateful things. Words on their own are not violence. The test of incitement to violence is its immediacy. Congress should not expand the definition of anti-Semitism. And freedom of speech doesn’t include the freedom to occupy buildings, block free movement, or camp illegally.Image
You’re Only For Free Speech If You Defend It For People You Hate

We should protect people physically, not emotionally

by @galexybrane & @shellenberger
A Israel supporter (left) shouts slogans against Pro-Palestinian demonstrators as they hold a protests outside Columbia University on February 2, 2024 in New York City. A pro-Palestinian demonstrator (right) shouts slogans as he marches on January 15, 2024 in New York City. (Photo by Eduardo MunozAlvarez/VIEWpress) (Photo by Eduardo Munoz Alvarez/VIEWpress)

Pro-Palestine protests on college campuses around the country have inflamed debates about free speech and antisemitism. Some Republicans and Democrats claim that government oversight and censorship of hate speech is needed to address these protests. Representatives Richie Torres (D-NY) and Mike Lawler (R-NY), for example, have introduced the COLUMBIA Act, which will create “antisemitism monitors” at select universities.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott, who in 2019 signed a bill to guarantee freedom of speech in Texas universities, suggested that protesters should be arrested for their views. “These protesters belong in jail,” he wrote about students at the University of Texas Austin. “Antisemitism will not be tolerated in Texas. Period.”

And most recently, the House Rules Committee advanced the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023, a bipartisan bill to expand the definition of antisemitism in Title VI federal anti-discrimination law. The bill refers to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism, which includes criticism of Israel, such as characterizing the state of Israel as a racist endeavor, or applying double standards to Israel’s conduct. Because all schools that receive federal funds must comply with Title VI, the bill would lead to greater censorship of speech on campus.

All of these efforts are violations of freedom of speech and we condemn them unreservedly. It’s once again time to remind ourselves and our fellow citizens that the test of our commitment to free speech is when we demand its protection for our enemies and for speech we hate, not for our friends and for speech we like.

To be sure, there have been hateful incidents at protests. Outside Columbia University’s gates, for instance, pro-Palestine protesters shouted “Go back to Poland!” at demonstrators holding Israeli flags. Multiple incidents of harassment have been reported on both sides. A leader of Columbia’s protest said on a livestream in January that Zionists “don’t deserve to live,” adding, “I feel very comfortable, very comfortable, calling for these people to die.”

Columbia students also pushed pro-Israel Jewish students out of their Gaza solidarity encampment on the campus lawn. In a similar incident, pro-Palestine protesters prevented a pro-Israel Jewish student at UCLA from accessing his route to class.

In these instances and others, protesters infringed on the rights of fellow tuition-paying students. University rules place limits on the time, place, and manner of protests. Constructing encampments, blocking parts of campus, and occupying buildings are clear violations of these rules and are not forms of protected speech.

Yet the conduct of some young protesters in no way requires placing greater restrictions on political speech for all students and infringing on academic freedom. Nor does it justify more government interventions to combat hate speech, expansion of counterproductive campus “safetyism,” and excessive use of police force on college campuses.

We know that readers may be displeased and disappointed that we are not unequivocally supporting one side of the Israel-Palestine debate and are instead presenting criticisms of both overreaching pro-Israel politicians and radical pro-Palestine protesters. But our position is unchanged from what it was last year: we reject the far left’s ideological extremism and its endorsement of Hamas’ actions on October 7. At the same time, we share the left’s concerns about civilian deaths in Gaza, violations of the Geneva Conventions, Israel’s political leadership, and potential escalation to a wider conflict.

We believe there is currently a great deal of confusion and hypocrisy around free speech on both sides of this debate. Some on the right who once claimed to believe in absolute free speech are now calling for a crackdown on “hate speech.” Meanwhile, many on the left, who have endorsed “cancel culture” and basically all censorship of their opponents since 2016, are now crying “Free speech!” without recognizing or admitting to how their own activities have set a terrible precedent.

Yet the line between speech and unlawful conduct is quite clear. Blocking traffic, taking over buildings, and constructing encampments are acts of force, and are not protected by the First Amendment. A central purpose of civil disobedience historically has been to provoke arrest in order to bring awareness to a cause, and students should know that arrest is a possible outcome of civil disobedience. While we believe that universities must aim to protect the right to protest as much as possible, encampments can disrupt learning and free movement around campus, and it is at universities’ discretion to suspend and expel students or call police to clear encampments.

The line between political speech and harassment or incitement to violence is also almost always clear...Image
Please subscribe now to support our defense of freedom of speech for all, and to read the rest of the article!

Read 5 tweets
Apr 24
O Procurador-Geral do Brasil acaba de me acusar de um "provável" crime por publicar "Twitter Files - Brasil". É uma mentira monstruosa. Presidente @LulaOficial está me perseguindo porque expus a censura ilegal do governo. Vou lutar e vencer.

gov.br/agu/pt-br/comu…
O governo do @LulaOficial está espalhando desinformação e teorias conspiratórias ridículas e fáceis de desmascarar, como eu fiz aqui:

Este documento é uma vergonha nacional.

Este documento revela Lula como igual a Castro.Image
Image
Image
Image
Read 5 tweets
Apr 24
Brazil's Attorney General just accused me of a "probable" crime for publishing "Twitter Files - Brazil." It's a monstrous lie. President @LulaOficial is persecuting me because I exposed the government's illegal censorship. I will fight back, and win.

gov.br/agu/pt-br/comu…
The @LulaOficial is spreading disinformation and ridiculous conspiracy theories that are easy to debunk, as I did here.

This document is a national embarrassment.

This document exposes Lula as Castro's equal.Image
Image
Image
Image
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(