4 ms·

I'm not sure I agree here. There are "right wing issues" and "left wing issues" and there is friction between them. What concerns me most is political "slurs"

by dijit 1y ago

I'm not sure I agree here. There are "right wing issues" and "left wing issues" and there is friction between them. What concerns me most is political "slurs" where everyone forgets the meaning of the term but constantly throws it around as if it's just a bad word. Then the conversation just goes off the deep end as soon as they're invoked. "You're a wokie" or "you're a fascist"; as if either of the people using those terms even knows what they're referring to primarily, they just decided it's bad and because the person they're talking to is bad they must be whatever bad word I have in my vocabulary. PS: I will say that "woke" has a more concrete definition than fascist to many, but I don't want to be accussed of being for (or against) any particular side when writing this comment, and I can't come up with many off the top of my head that the right wingers use against the left wingers... so, sorry.

jrm4 1y ago
"Woke" is perhaps the freaking platonic ideal of what this article criticizes. I'm black. It once was just a mostly fun little word that meant "Hey man, are you paying attention to the world around you?" And today it is completely without concrete meaning. For the left, it's kind of whatever, because it's responding to what it is for the so called right -- literally nothing more concrete than "what I don't like right now that might be associated with any group possibly considered a minority."
- ziml77 1y ago
  It has been obvious to me for a long time that the people using the term woke now don't even have a concrete definition of the term, but I was still blown away by the sheer stupidity and obliviousness of one of those right wing people posting about how they are not woke, they are awake [to the world around them].
  - 1718627440 1y ago
    I use the term to describe the need and moral entitledness of modifying language as a reaction and treatment to injustice and to the intended normalization of every sexual practice existing. As such I don't see these two examples as contradicting. One side uses woke (awake) as acting to the world in "ingesting" it in language, while the other side thinks of being awake in seeing that the world doesn't actually work that way. They both think they are "awake", they just disagree how and what "the world" is.
    - jrm4 1y ago
      This is either an epic troll or an excellent bit of evidence in favor of my point. :)
      - 1718627440 1y ago
        > This is either an epic troll That wasn't my intention. :-) I just wanted to point out that it is not "sheer stupidity and obliviousness", but a useful distinction. > It once was just a mostly fun little word I think part of that issue is, that the term didn't exist here when it only meant that. Was it a "in black subgroup" thing? Or was this known to a wider audience? > excellent bit of evidence in favor of my point Can you explain this to counteract my obliviousness? So you see ziml77 as an example of left and me of right, or what?
        jrm4 1y ago
        I'm not sure exactly what the question is here, but I'm comfortable saying that the definition I gave isn't a "later" thing. It's the historical/factual origin story of the word. As with many cultural things, Black folks will often invent something, and then it gets appropriated because it's cool (for better or worse). What you're saying, if sincere, is extremely late stage. I'm very comfortable with: It was solely "our" thing for a while, I mean I can recall that usage even before the year 2000. Somewhere MUCH after that it gets a little bit more popular (e.g. either due to or more likely downstream of the Childish Gambino song Redbone?) and (perhaps likely to more white liberal folks using it) begins to "feel" more concrete than before, despite not actually much being so. And perhaps more importantly, IMHO "the right" is always desperate to find codewords they can use to put down minority groups without obvious slurs. "Woke" fits the bill pretty well, especially since it evokes AAVE.
        1718627440 1y ago
        Before your comment I did not know that "woke" means something else then political behaviour of the left. I also didn't had in mind that it comes from the word "awake". I here it exclusively used in the sense I described. We don't have much black subgroups here, as far as I know, and it takes some while before terms cross the Atlantic. Sorry that we are all misusing your term. But I think that's not a political thing, that's just language. Foreign term introduced in our language almost never mean exactly, what they meant in the origin language. The "right" I consider myself part of (conservatism, not far right), doesn't have something against minorities. It's more resentment against "minority issues" being used to push orthogonal left ideologies. Whenever "the left" introduces some law to "free the oppressed minorities", the first people crying against it are always the interest groups of the minorities themselves. That's the case from disabled people to people with actual sexual disorders. They never want weird prescription and political flamewars, they want actual help.
1718627440 1y ago
> "woke" has a more concrete definition than fascist Fascist is a very concrete definition, as it is a comparison to a concrete existing historical movement. It's kind of the same as with Nationalsocialists. It is a term for a very concrete party, but is sometimes used as a slur.
- timr 1y ago
  > Fascist is a very concrete definition, as it is a comparison to a concrete existing historical movement. If, by "very concrete definition" you mean "party name invented by Mussolini" [1], then yes. Otherwise, absolutely not. I can't tell from your comment which you're trying to imply. Using the word in reference to a modern political movement is essentially just a lazy, dumb way of flinging a slur that invokes someone bad in history. [1] Per Britannica: "[Mussolini] took the name of his party from the Latin word "fasces", which referred to a bundle of elm or birch rods (usually containing an ax) used as a symbol of penal authority in ancient Rome."
  - 1718627440 1y ago
    > party name invented by Mussolini Yes exactly that's what I meant with "concrete existing historical movement". I thought that would be unambiguous, what else do you thought I've implied? It is however not exclusively used as a slur. What I hear more often from the mouth of politicians, is calling something fascistic, which means that is compared to it, so saying that X is using something from the playbook of the fascists. This is why I am glad, that calling someone a Nazi is sue-able in my country. This means that we now have court decisions both for that someone is not a Nazi, it was a slur, and that this was punished, and also that someone is indeed a Nazi and is officially documented as such. > as a symbol of penal authority And this is actually a good description of what fascism stands for. I'm often astonished of how good self-labels actually are in defining and arguing against ideologies.
    - timr 1y ago
      Yeah, calling something "fascistic" is at least more honest that a metaphor is being invoked. I still think it's lazy, because most of the time, the people using the word have no idea what specific thing they're talking about is "fascistic", nor could they name a specific "fascistic" trait if you challenged them to do so. Again, it's mostly a lazy way of saying "I think this person is evil, but I cannot articulate precisely why!" I personally think the laws against calling someone a "Nazi" are antithetical to free speech -- and invocation of "Nazi" is always useful to quickly illustrate that you're arguing with an idiot -- but lately my eyes are getting sore from rolling so much, so I have sympathy for such a law.
amradio1989 1y ago
Let’s talk about it. What are “left wing issues” and what are “right wing issues”? We can probably agree on what an issue is. But I’m not sure we have any idea what right wing or left wing are. How far right is right wing? And right of what, exactly? What about the left? Where is the center point? Here’s a fun one. To whom belongs the issue of racism? Is that a right wing issue or a left wing one? It’s neither of course. It’s a human issue. And you have victims of racism across the entire political spectrum who care deeply about it. Yet discourse would have you assume it’s a “left wing” issue, when it’s anything but.
- dijit 1y ago
  Right wing issue: National Identity, community building, trust and safety (high trust society), belief that governmental power corrupts (though obviously they weigh this against the trust mentioned earlier and put a lot of merit in armed forces and police). Left wing issues: Equity and fairness, individual identity but mandatory collectivism and the belief that government is likely to be more fair than a charity or company (I am on this end of things, but I can sympathise with the other). Its sort of ignorant to throw up your hands here, at least in the US the stances are pretty well defined. The abortion debate is a good example where one side believes fully that its murder, and the other side believes fully that forcing people to care for children they don’t want will lead to misery (I am personally on this end of the spectrum so forgive any bias in my wording). All issues are human issues, thats like talking about COVID and then bringing up Aids because they are both “human conditions”: these points are disperse, and everyone thinks they know whats best for society.
  - 1718627440 1y ago
    Well spoken. I consider myself on the other end of things, but I experience, that for people with an active political stance, it's pretty obvious who is who (unless somebody is in propaganda mode). Unless you are on an extreme side, you can always sympathize with the other side for most issues, which is why we are able to find compromises and vote on laws at all. As for the example you mention (abortion), this is one where I can't sympathize with your side. To me living is a human right that is never moral to be violated, especially for personal selfish interests. Yes, I do consider being too poor for a child or not wanting a child to be selfish. This: > forcing people to care for children they don’t want will lead to misery to me seams like a strawman. That's why we have baby flaps and foster homes for centuries. Even at the end of the roman empire people have brought babies to monasteries, because they didn't want to care for them. Yes they are more miserable then having good parents, but no amount of misery of the living is worth justifying a kill.

by dijit 1y ago

jrm4 1y ago

"Woke" is perhaps the freaking platonic ideal of what this article criticizes. I'm black. It once was just a mostly fun little word that meant "Hey man, are you paying attention to the world around you?" And today it is completely without concrete meaning. For the left, it's kind of whatever, because it's responding to what it is for the so called right -- literally nothing more concrete than "what I don't like right now that might be associated with any group possibly considered a minority."

ziml77 1y ago
It has been obvious to me for a long time that the people using the term woke now don't even have a concrete definition of the term, but I was still blown away by the sheer stupidity and obliviousness of one of those right wing people posting about how they are not woke, they are awake [to the world around them].
- 1718627440 1y ago
  I use the term to describe the need and moral entitledness of modifying language as a reaction and treatment to injustice and to the intended normalization of every sexual practice existing. As such I don't see these two examples as contradicting. One side uses woke (awake) as acting to the world in "ingesting" it in language, while the other side thinks of being awake in seeing that the world doesn't actually work that way. They both think they are "awake", they just disagree how and what "the world" is.
  - jrm4 1y ago
    This is either an epic troll or an excellent bit of evidence in favor of my point. :)
    - 1718627440 1y ago
      > This is either an epic troll That wasn't my intention. :-) I just wanted to point out that it is not "sheer stupidity and obliviousness", but a useful distinction. > It once was just a mostly fun little word I think part of that issue is, that the term didn't exist here when it only meant that. Was it a "in black subgroup" thing? Or was this known to a wider audience? > excellent bit of evidence in favor of my point Can you explain this to counteract my obliviousness? So you see ziml77 as an example of left and me of right, or what?
      - jrm4 1y ago
        I'm not sure exactly what the question is here, but I'm comfortable saying that the definition I gave isn't a "later" thing. It's the historical/factual origin story of the word. As with many cultural things, Black folks will often invent something, and then it gets appropriated because it's cool (for better or worse). What you're saying, if sincere, is extremely late stage. I'm very comfortable with: It was solely "our" thing for a while, I mean I can recall that usage even before the year 2000. Somewhere MUCH after that it gets a little bit more popular (e.g. either due to or more likely downstream of the Childish Gambino song Redbone?) and (perhaps likely to more white liberal folks using it) begins to "feel" more concrete than before, despite not actually much being so. And perhaps more importantly, IMHO "the right" is always desperate to find codewords they can use to put down minority groups without obvious slurs. "Woke" fits the bill pretty well, especially since it evokes AAVE.
        1718627440 1y ago
        Before your comment I did not know that "woke" means something else then political behaviour of the left. I also didn't had in mind that it comes from the word "awake". I here it exclusively used in the sense I described. We don't have much black subgroups here, as far as I know, and it takes some while before terms cross the Atlantic. Sorry that we are all misusing your term. But I think that's not a political thing, that's just language. Foreign term introduced in our language almost never mean exactly, what they meant in the origin language. The "right" I consider myself part of (conservatism, not far right), doesn't have something against minorities. It's more resentment against "minority issues" being used to push orthogonal left ideologies. Whenever "the left" introduces some law to "free the oppressed minorities", the first people crying against it are always the interest groups of the minorities themselves. That's the case from disabled people to people with actual sexual disorders. They never want weird prescription and political flamewars, they want actual help.

1718627440 1y ago

> "woke" has a more concrete definition than fascist Fascist is a very concrete definition, as it is a comparison to a concrete existing historical movement. It's kind of the same as with Nationalsocialists. It is a term for a very concrete party, but is sometimes used as a slur.

timr 1y ago
> Fascist is a very concrete definition, as it is a comparison to a concrete existing historical movement. If, by "very concrete definition" you mean "party name invented by Mussolini" [1], then yes. Otherwise, absolutely not. I can't tell from your comment which you're trying to imply. Using the word in reference to a modern political movement is essentially just a lazy, dumb way of flinging a slur that invokes someone bad in history. [1] Per Britannica: "[Mussolini] took the name of his party from the Latin word "fasces", which referred to a bundle of elm or birch rods (usually containing an ax) used as a symbol of penal authority in ancient Rome."
- 1718627440 1y ago
  > party name invented by Mussolini Yes exactly that's what I meant with "concrete existing historical movement". I thought that would be unambiguous, what else do you thought I've implied? It is however not exclusively used as a slur. What I hear more often from the mouth of politicians, is calling something fascistic, which means that is compared to it, so saying that X is using something from the playbook of the fascists. This is why I am glad, that calling someone a Nazi is sue-able in my country. This means that we now have court decisions both for that someone is not a Nazi, it was a slur, and that this was punished, and also that someone is indeed a Nazi and is officially documented as such. > as a symbol of penal authority And this is actually a good description of what fascism stands for. I'm often astonished of how good self-labels actually are in defining and arguing against ideologies.
  - timr 1y ago
    Yeah, calling something "fascistic" is at least more honest that a metaphor is being invoked. I still think it's lazy, because most of the time, the people using the word have no idea what specific thing they're talking about is "fascistic", nor could they name a specific "fascistic" trait if you challenged them to do so. Again, it's mostly a lazy way of saying "I think this person is evil, but I cannot articulate precisely why!" I personally think the laws against calling someone a "Nazi" are antithetical to free speech -- and invocation of "Nazi" is always useful to quickly illustrate that you're arguing with an idiot -- but lately my eyes are getting sore from rolling so much, so I have sympathy for such a law.

amradio1989 1y ago

Let’s talk about it. What are “left wing issues” and what are “right wing issues”? We can probably agree on what an issue is. But I’m not sure we have any idea what right wing or left wing are. How far right is right wing? And right of what, exactly? What about the left? Where is the center point? Here’s a fun one. To whom belongs the issue of racism? Is that a right wing issue or a left wing one? It’s neither of course. It’s a human issue. And you have victims of racism across the entire political spectrum who care deeply about it. Yet discourse would have you assume it’s a “left wing” issue, when it’s anything but.

dijit 1y ago
Right wing issue: National Identity, community building, trust and safety (high trust society), belief that governmental power corrupts (though obviously they weigh this against the trust mentioned earlier and put a lot of merit in armed forces and police). Left wing issues: Equity and fairness, individual identity but mandatory collectivism and the belief that government is likely to be more fair than a charity or company (I am on this end of things, but I can sympathise with the other). Its sort of ignorant to throw up your hands here, at least in the US the stances are pretty well defined. The abortion debate is a good example where one side believes fully that its murder, and the other side believes fully that forcing people to care for children they don’t want will lead to misery (I am personally on this end of the spectrum so forgive any bias in my wording). All issues are human issues, thats like talking about COVID and then bringing up Aids because they are both “human conditions”: these points are disperse, and everyone thinks they know whats best for society.
- 1718627440 1y ago
  Well spoken. I consider myself on the other end of things, but I experience, that for people with an active political stance, it's pretty obvious who is who (unless somebody is in propaganda mode). Unless you are on an extreme side, you can always sympathize with the other side for most issues, which is why we are able to find compromises and vote on laws at all. As for the example you mention (abortion), this is one where I can't sympathize with your side. To me living is a human right that is never moral to be violated, especially for personal selfish interests. Yes, I do consider being too poor for a child or not wanting a child to be selfish. This: > forcing people to care for children they don’t want will lead to misery to me seams like a strawman. That's why we have baby flaps and foster homes for centuries. Even at the end of the roman empire people have brought babies to monasteries, because they didn't want to care for them. Yes they are more miserable then having good parents, but no amount of misery of the living is worth justifying a kill.