5 ms·

Stalinism might had a top down approach to ideology, but what would get you in a gulag is the people around you reporting you to the kgb. This made oppression i

by rougka 4y ago

Stalinism might had a top down approach to ideology, but what would get you in a gulag is the people around you reporting you to the kgb. This made oppression including linguistic also bottom-up Newspeak is actually a very similar approach to what’s going on currently because it removes words that allows communicating ideologically problematic concepts. What’s going on with the entire blacklist/whitelist issues is based on the assumption that removing a word that describes a perceived injustice will remove that injustice from the world. It is an approach that is completely blind to the real meaning a word has taken, and tries to folk etymologically hack a different interpretation. This is why the real insulting words are never these that debated. Both Newspeak and "rightspeak" think that language creates reality rather than the other way around

NoraCodes 4y ago
> Stalinism might had a top down approach to ideology, but what would get you in a gulag is the people around you reporting you to the kgb. This made oppression including linguistic also bottom-up Snitching on your neighbors to the state secret police because they criticized the state is not a bottom-up movement. It is possible only when there is a coherent, centralized state agenda. There are no woke police. There is no woke Stalin. The analogy is utterly inapplicable here. > the real insulting words are never these that debated. I'm curious about this, do you have some examples?
- rougka 4y ago
  In a corporate environment you do have an investigation department that enforces such language. However, my point is that in a totalitarian environment people treated you as a pariah for non conforming, as they would not want to face a similar fate. This is a similarity to the taboo of advocating against such an ideology. about the examples, if you would take extreme slurs against minorities, these are not used in a professional environment already so they are never these that are discussed The words that are discussed are such that are established for a different connotation. that connotation is completely metaphorical and does not carry any real insult, yet some insist on literalizing those, or finding hidden meanings

by rougka 4y ago

NoraCodes 4y ago

> Stalinism might had a top down approach to ideology, but what would get you in a gulag is the people around you reporting you to the kgb. This made oppression including linguistic also bottom-up Snitching on your neighbors to the state secret police because they criticized the state is not a bottom-up movement. It is possible only when there is a coherent, centralized state agenda. There are no woke police. There is no woke Stalin. The analogy is utterly inapplicable here. > the real insulting words are never these that debated. I'm curious about this, do you have some examples?

rougka 4y ago
In a corporate environment you do have an investigation department that enforces such language. However, my point is that in a totalitarian environment people treated you as a pariah for non conforming, as they would not want to face a similar fate. This is a similarity to the taboo of advocating against such an ideology. about the examples, if you would take extreme slurs against minorities, these are not used in a professional environment already so they are never these that are discussed The words that are discussed are such that are established for a different connotation. that connotation is completely metaphorical and does not carry any real insult, yet some insist on literalizing those, or finding hidden meanings