6 ms·

Hopefully not much. They'll invent some jargon if necessary and move on. The issue with banning "woke ideology" in principle is that it isn't formally defined a

• lostlogin 2y ago
  > Might take 4 months, might take 4 years to blow over. That’s a lot more optimistic than I fear.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > issue with banning "woke ideology" It’s the illiberal right shaking hands with the illiberal left. The problem is this time the purges aren’t just ideological, but also financial: there are winners and losers in our healthcare industry likely to be defined by their polarity to Trump.
  • noobermin 2y ago
    What "illiberal left" benefits from this? Half of the reason we are at this point is the nonstop equivocation that goes on in our discourse. Lay this at the feet of who caused it.
    • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > What "illiberal left" benefits from this Banning terms from general and academic use originated, in modern America, from the illiberal left’s cancel culture. I’m not saying they caused this—it’s not novel that illiberalism leads to censorship. But the tactics both groups use when they get their hands on power are remarkably similar. > the nonstop equivocation You probably mean false equation. I don’t believe I am, because the illiberal left never came into power. At least not federally. Liberals on the left successfully checked our radicals in a way the right did not. (If you want policy fusion between the illiberal left and right, it’s in RFK Jr. Marin County sees eye to eye with MAGA on e.g. vaccines.)
      • asddubs 2y ago
        before cancel culture it was satanic panic from the right. This is not a new phenomenon, and I don't think it has much to do with the shift towards right wing extremism
        • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
          [flagged]
          • asddubs 2y ago
            my point was less that it's a right or left wing thing in this case, but that it's not a new phenomenon
      • exe34 2y ago
        cancel culture from the left came from grassroot movements - kids at uni get offended and they ban certain words and heckle certain speakers. cancel culture from the right is coming from POTUS. can you tell me if you think there's any difference at all between the two?
        • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
          > cancel culture from the right is coming from POTUS Not really. Trump is channeling something that probably came from the book-banning religious conservative crowd.
          • exe34 2y ago
            "the buck stops here". he controls the most powerful army in history. I don't care whose arm is reaching up his colon to move his lips - he's responsible. it's his signature on the orders.
            • TheOtherHobbes 2y ago
              He clearly has dementia on top of raging NPD and I'd honestly be surprised if he knows what day it is.
    • throwaway5292 2y ago
      [flagged]
      • immibis 2y ago
        A Nazi punching a Jew in the face is much worse than a Jew punching a Nazi in the face. I hope you agree with this. The latter is even, arguably, good.
        • card_zero 2y ago
          That's a matter of context, and raises the question of whether they're in a civil society or a war (or both at once). In principle in a civil society nobody should be punching anybody in the face and mitigating circumstances like the other person being a nazi are only details. But see Sartre's feelings about living alongside nazis in occupied France: the were very polite and pleasant, and the whole situation was tense and awkward because you're unsure of your duty in that situation - is it war or not?
          • Larrikin 2y ago
            There is no such thing as a civil society when one group believes the other should be segregated, enslaved, have genocide committed against them, etc. That is just gas lighting one group so that they don't know they are the frog in the boiling pot. Trying to be civil in a tolerance paradox situation just makes sure you're eliminated, but maybe just not today.
          • tnias23 2y ago
            Is this a quote from Sartre, or just an interpretation? I looked for it and couldn’t find it, beyond maybe representing his “Paris under the occupation”
            • card_zero 2y ago
              No, not a quote, a very poor recollection of casually reading about this. He was keen on resisting, tried to organize a group (of writers?) and made some proposals for violent acts (assassinations?) but they couldn't get it together to do anything.
• GeneralMayhem 2y ago
  > It isn't possible to implement incoherent policies If you assume that the goal is to implement a policy, no, it's not possible. But that's never the goal with such chaos. The goal is to make it unclear what's allowed or not, so that the real answer becomes: whatever the current ruler favors is allowed, and whatever he dislikes is disallowed. "Woke ideology", like "globalism" or "cultural Marxism" before it, means nothing, which means it can mean anything.
  • crabbone 2y ago
    I remember my dad having to travel to Moscow during the Soviet times to get the censor's approval for the movie he was planning to shoot (that is on top of budget-related issues etc.) I was still very little then, but from what little I remember, it seemed like it always was a guessing game: how much do you have to add of glory to the proletariat in order to make the cut. Naturally, artists were turning their noses when they saw too much of the Soviet propaganda in a movie, so, they tried to put as little of it as possible, at the same time using all sorts of tricks to disguise the criticism of the system that required the censorship. And while this kind of little struggle had its fun moments... overall, I don't think it was fun. Also, indeed the rules of what's allowed or disallowed would change based on current political events, and just like in 1984, everyone was supposed to acknowledge that the rules had always been the way they currently are. Which, in terms of long-term planning, would sometimes result in problems. Like, when someone was trying to placate the censorship by overemphasizing some political aspect at the time of submission, but the events developed so fast, that the official party line at the assessment time was the exact opposite of what it was at the submission time. ---- Oh, and just to give some examples of when the "proto-woke" (in Soviet times it was called the "decadent capitalist influence") had some tragic consequences. The only acceptable painting style was Soviet Realism. Anything that had signs of deliberate distortion of color / perspective / size / anatomy etc. would be labeled "decadent capitalist" and perpetrators would be prosecuted. So, another student in my dad's class came in drunk to a model drawing session. And instead of using a graphite pencil, used what was called a "chemical pencil", which is a kind of Indian-ink based pencil (it's practically impossible to erase). And, in a study of a head of a model, that student made several strokes that extended beyond where the area of the nose would've been, and so it looked like the model had whiskers... That student was later taken away to the dean, and in short time was expelled. Another student was expelled for wiping his paintbrush on the canvas (which he later planned to cover with some neutral background color, but was too late...) because he forgot to bring a piece of rug that one usually uses to wipe a brush before using a different paint. That sounds like a fun anecdote, but those two had their lives ruined.
• _heimdall 2y ago
  Governments implement incoherent policies all the time. I'd argue that it isn't possible to write thousands of pages in a single bill or budget proposal and have it actually be coherent.
• toss1 2y ago
  It also might take four generations or four centuries to 'blow over' Authoritarians do not stop until they are stopped by an external force. The cost of stopping them only increases with every move they make to consolidate power (which of course is the intention).
  • adriand 2y ago
    From the article: > This is leading to what Germans call “vorauseilender Gehorsam,” or “preemptive obedience,” as one non-CDC scientist commented. And why is this term German? Do, perhaps, the Germans have unique experience and insight in this regard? > After the German elections of 1932, which permitted Adolf Hitler to form a government, or the Czechoslovak elections of 1946, where communists were victorious, the next crucial step was anticipatory obedience. Because enough people in both cases voluntarily extended their services to the new leaders, Nazis and communists alike realized that they could move quickly toward a full regime change. The first heedless acts of conformity could not then be reversed. [1] It’s become fashionable to accuse people who raise the spectre of fascism and authoritarianism of crying wolf. We are being told not to believe the evidence of our own eyes, like when Elon Musk performs the Nazi salute in front of the far right dignitaries assembled for the inauguration and we’re supposed to believe this is because he’s on the spectrum or some other nonsense. If you don’t want to go down the road that anticipatory obedience leads to, then you have to resist. It is that simple. 1: https://lithub.com/resist-authoritarianism-by-refusing-to-obey-in-advance/ https://lithub.com/resist-authoritarianism-by-refusing-to-ob...
    • selimthegrim 2y ago
      Late Soviets had term for it too - “aggressive-obedient majority”, although this applies more to Republicans in legislature and the Air Force people who took down Tuskegee stuff
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
• wl 2y ago
  > They'll invent some jargon if necessary and move on. The authors of this memo banning terms haven't realized this has already happened in part. Obstetrics avoids the use of gender with the term "parturient" instead of "mother." "Pregnant person" probably isn't showing up in many papers.
  • foxglacier 2y ago
    And maybe that's fine because it isn't a signal of ideology like "pregnant person" is. Don't forget that if scientists were using these terms, they were likely already doing so because of political pressure, so it is good to stop it in cases where it's nothing to do with their research (eg. transgender parturients). Of course it doesn't mean this order isn't ham-fisted, but research is often polluted by politics because it helps get funding as well as researchers are pretty politically biased in some fields.
  • bnjms 2y ago
    What’s wrong referring to the relevant sex characteristics? Why change language for the exceptional and small population? A man who gives birth is still the mother even if they take a social role of a father later in the child’s development.
    • gaganyaan 2y ago
      [flagged]
    • LordDragonfang 2y ago
      Because their sex characteristics aren't the relevant thing, the fact that they are pregnant is. The medical field prefers precise terminology. It's only when it comes to trans people that people get weird about it, because they're really using it as an excuse to argue about something else
• Neonlicht 2y ago
  It's a lot easier to destroy something than rebuild it. I've always joked that Trump was basically the Manchurian candidate.
• throw0101a 2y ago
  > Hopefully not much. They'll invent some jargon if necessary and move on. "Winnie-the-Pooh"?