3 ms·

Thinking that changing words changes the material reality for anyone is peak Californian ideology. I'm sure all the slaves being sold in markets in Libya are e

Thinking that changing words changes the material reality for anyone is peak Californian ideology. I'm sure all the slaves being sold in markets in Libya are ecstatic about this change.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
johnea 3y ago
Anytime anyone cites "Californication" it's just a clear indicator that they don't live here, and know nothing about the place. California is NOT what people think in Texas and Arkansas. Isn't it the US south that's banning certain words and discussions? That said, as a person living in California, I totally agree this change in nomenclature is pointless posturing. In my opinion, being a "follower" is even more disparaging than being a "slave" Slaves don't really have a choice, they're forced to labor, whereas followers are volunteering their subservience.
- pandaman 3y ago
  As somebody who lived in California, I also was startled how stupid some TV shows I enjoyed while living in LA became when I moved to another state. It's not some California magic though, but the lack of a different perspective. When I moved back to California I had no problem observing the general Californian madness with a little effort of telling myself "what would a normal person think about that?".
- nvm0n2 3y ago
  Sad thing is it's not pointless. It's very much got a point like all the other apparently pointless word fights these people engage in. It's a way to separate and identify ideological fellow travelers (one might say followers) from the rest, so when they do something more consequential they know who their allies will be. A lot of so called virtue signalling is like this. People often label something that without asking, signalling to whom? Same thing with pronouns and other highly visible loyalty pledges to the ideology. Nobody does them because they literally think they're useful, they're doing it whether they realized it or not to signal that they're one of the tribe and can relied on when a more important fight comes up. Of course this is a sword that cuts in both directions. Smart leaders who realize this now know who the troublemakers are and can find ways to get rid of them. Unfortunately most don't take it seriously enough to do so(yet).

Thinking that changing words changes the material reality for anyone is peak Californian ideology. I'm sure all the slaves being sold in markets in Libya are ecstatic about this change.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

johnea 3y ago

Anytime anyone cites "Californication" it's just a clear indicator that they don't live here, and know nothing about the place. California is NOT what people think in Texas and Arkansas. Isn't it the US south that's banning certain words and discussions? That said, as a person living in California, I totally agree this change in nomenclature is pointless posturing. In my opinion, being a "follower" is even more disparaging than being a "slave" Slaves don't really have a choice, they're forced to labor, whereas followers are volunteering their subservience.

pandaman 3y ago
As somebody who lived in California, I also was startled how stupid some TV shows I enjoyed while living in LA became when I moved to another state. It's not some California magic though, but the lack of a different perspective. When I moved back to California I had no problem observing the general Californian madness with a little effort of telling myself "what would a normal person think about that?".
nvm0n2 3y ago
Sad thing is it's not pointless. It's very much got a point like all the other apparently pointless word fights these people engage in. It's a way to separate and identify ideological fellow travelers (one might say followers) from the rest, so when they do something more consequential they know who their allies will be. A lot of so called virtue signalling is like this. People often label something that without asking, signalling to whom? Same thing with pronouns and other highly visible loyalty pledges to the ideology. Nobody does them because they literally think they're useful, they're doing it whether they realized it or not to signal that they're one of the tribe and can relied on when a more important fight comes up. Of course this is a sword that cuts in both directions. Smart leaders who realize this now know who the troublemakers are and can find ways to get rid of them. Unfortunately most don't take it seriously enough to do so(yet).