"Wokeist" - When people talk about progressivism without acquaintance

[Evie]

Transition affecting (or helping reach a new understanding of) orientation is a real thing, for a variety of reasons, but the point of that phrase is that a B is a B regardless of the gender of their current partner - they don't switch between l/G and straight depending.

 

[Hygro]

Aha Amadeus you jerk

 

[Gorbles]

Anyone keeping up read one post, and if you scrolled back, there was a different one.

You quoted the part of my post where I was replying to someone else (EnglishEdward). I know you (personally) replied to schlaufuchs.

Did I touch a nerve or something? I thought the whole point of this was telling others that just because they see an association, it isn't necessarily there and they shouldn't assume such a thing.

Because assuming a negative connotation with missing context is problematic? a you problem?

Nobody here is missing any context, kiddo

 

[Cloud_Strife]

if trans women and men are just women and men wont the word trans be dropped along with the t in lgbtq+

Trans women can be lesbians and bisexual and trans men can be gay and bisexual as well, probably at far higher rates than cis people

 

[Akka]

I didn't say anything about what "the left" does, or doesn't do. I said nothing about "the right" as a "manipulative force", either. You wanted examples of "the right" redefining phrases that then made their way to the general public. I gave explanations as to how this happened.

No, you gave example of word uses happening in right-wing circles and then said that considering the right is part of the larger community, then it means these words have also this meaning in the larger community. Which is both kinda nonsensical and also a direct contradiction of the point I was trying to answer before, which was about the supposed "left can't manage to direct mainstream discourse while the right does it". I'm still trying to get some clarity on this.

Honestly, this whole thread is a mess, I feel I'm spending most of my time asking what is being discussed rather than actually discussing it.

 

[Gorbles]

No, you gave example of word uses happening in right-wing circles and then said that considering the right is part of the larger community, then it means these words have also this meaning in the larger community. Which is both kinda nonsensical and also a direct contradiction of the point I was trying to answer before, which was about the supposed "left can't manage to direct mainstream discourse while the right does it". I'm still trying to get some clarity on this.

I wasn't talking about "the left can't manage to direct mainstream discourse while the right does it". Apologies if the examples I gave were in service of a point that ended up too narrow. It looked to me that you were looking for examples of right-wing appropriation of terms that have become more generally-used. This is, in particular, why I gave the example of the BBC in the UK giving Jeremy Corbyn a literal Soviet makeover, on mainstream TV.

For example, it's not just the far-right (or even "the right") that call anyone they don't like "communists", which is what you said prior. It's become more than that. Which is what I thought you were asking for evidence of. Again, sorry if I read that all wrong.

 

[Akka]

I wasn't talking about "the left can't manage to direct mainstream discourse while the right does it". Apologies if the examples I gave were in service of a point that ended up too narrow. It looked to me that you were looking for examples of right-wing appropriation of terms that have become more generally-used. This is, in particular, why I gave the example of the BBC in the UK giving Jeremy Corbyn a literal Soviet makeover, on mainstream TV.

Right-wing appropriation of terms that have become more generally-used are fine, if the case is clearly about a right-wing appropriation becoming the dominant meaning (which are examples I'm asking for) and not just a general change of the meaning that is just also happily used by the right but (which is what I see all now-pejorative terms that were initially self-identifying labels on the woke subset of politics).
I haven't seen the BBC example, but wasn't that simply a sloppy definition rather than an actual right-wing appropriation ?

For example, it's not just the far-right (or even "the right") that call anyone they don't like "communists", which is what you said prior. It's become more than that. Which is what I thought you were asking for evidence of. Again, sorry if I read that all wrong.

I'm afraid that I simply don't see "communist" being used as a general pejorative. And even when it's the case, it's usually more about the, to say the least, pretty terrible track record of self-styled communist regimes than anything coming from the right.

To be blunt, I simply have a hard time relating to this whole vaguely conspiracy-like "the right dictate the common distortion of the language". From my perception, the pejorative tones that many words got are largely self-inflicted and not caused by any sort of deliberate smear campaign that somehow work only for one half of the political compass.
"SJW" and "woke", being self-label-turned-pejorative, look mainly due to the content of the political subset itself that repels a lot of people, and the very habits of calling "bigot" anyone who doesn't agree with said politics. This thread is in fact a pretty good example of the typical behaviour that lead to such perception, while ironically trying to do the opposite.

 

[Senethro]

Mass deaths sticks to communists, but Manifest Destiny Genocides don't stick to Americans, and imperialists don't stick to W. Europeans.

 

[Zardnaar]

Right-wing appropriation of terms that have become more generally-used are fine, if the case is clearly about a right-wing appropriation becoming the dominant meaning (which are examples I'm asking for) and not just a general change of the meaning that is just also happily used by the right but (which is what I see all now-pejorative terms that were initially self-identifying labels on the woke subset of politics).
I haven't seen the BBC example, but wasn't that simply a sloppy definition rather than an actual right-wing appropriation ?

I'm afraid that I simply don't see "communist" being used as a general pejorative. And even when it's the case, it's usually more about the, to say the least, pretty terrible track record of self-styled communist regimes than anything coming from the right.

To be blunt, I simply have a hard time relating to this whole vaguely conspiracy-like "the right dictate the common distortion of the language". From my perception, the pejorative tones that many words got are largely self-inflicted and not caused by any sort of deliberate smear campaign that somehow work only for one half of the political compass.
"SJW" and "woke", being self-label-turned-pejorative, look mainly due to the content of the political subset itself that repels a lot of people, and the very habits of calling "bigot" anyone who doesn't agree with said politics. This thread is in fact a pretty good example of the typical behaviour that lead to such perception, while ironically trying to do the opposite.

Fascist gets used the most Communist occasionally.

Woke is also kind of a joke. Lots of noise but I have doubts it appeals to more than 5-10% of the population and no more than 15%.

Hardcore wokeism even normal liberals are getting sick of them.

 

[Samson]

I haven't seen the BBC example, but wasn't that simply a sloppy definition rather than an actual right-wing appropriation ?

I am not sure what Gorbles was referring to, but the BBC (and the rest of the UK media, who appear as much under the control of PTB) spent a lot of the last election talking about Corbyn and the book forward and mural, but did not mention BoJo's book where he painted the Jews as controlling the global media.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Really? Please tell me, fellow countryman, where have you ever heard "sissy" (derived from sister) spoken as "sis" (in the context of the slang, and not actually anyone's sister). "sissy boy", yes. "sis boy" . . . hmm. Almost comes across as made-up, but if you have some actual evidence it belongs to a dialect or similar (instead of maybe anecdotally being yelled within earshot one time), that'd be downright fascinating.

IIRC London and Norfolk.

"He's a sis", spoken quietly.

It is more as a slanderous aside, rather than a direct insult.

I only ask because it was a very common (and mild) insult where I'm from (anecdotally), and I haven't heard it abbreviated in my life, nor (more importantly) does the established etymology seem to support the abbreviation.

As the term sissy predates the term cisgender, established etymology hardly supports the
view that cis/sis is necessarily an abbreviation for cisgender rather than for sissy.

Thing is for obvious reasons slanderous asides are more frequently abbreviated than direct insults.

 

[Narz]

but to be clear: a B is always a B. A bi woman who is dating a man is bi, and if that same bi woman sometime later was dating a woman she would also still be bi

That's not really up to you. Sexuality can be fluid especially amongst females. Someone can identify as bi or even lesbian and later in life identify as straight or vice versa.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Perhaps they should add a "C" into the LG??? string for Confused?

 

[Evie]

Narz - that may not be wrong, but it's really focusing on a side issue, when the main problem is the people who think bisexual is primarily or exclusively a transitional stage (who vastly overplay cases like the one you describe as a result) ; and the people who think your sexuality is defined by your current relationship.

Edward: while there may be some understandable confusion in speech, in writing (such as on the internet) the distinction is fairly clear. An abbreviaon of sissy would start with S, not C.

Assuming slander for sis is also a problem since by far its more common usage is as an abbreviation of sister, the feminine equivalent of "bro"

 

[Narz]

Narz - that may not be wrong, but it's really focusing on a side issue, when the main problem is the people who think bisexual is primarily or exclusively a transitional stage (who vastly overplay cases like the one you describe as a result) ; and the people who think your sexuality is defined by your current relationship.

It's not defined by your current relationship its defined by who you are in that moment. Plenty of women really are gay and then their attraction changes and they really are straight (or again vice versa). Who you were when you were 16 or 24 doesn't define who you are now.

And if people want to call being bi wishy-washy like being agnostic that's on them. You don't have to artificially solidify who you are to prove anything to the haters. Identify of any kind is an illusion anyway.

 

[sophie]

That's not really up to you. Sexuality can be fluid especially amongst females. Someone can identify as bi or even lesbian and later in life identify as straight or vice versa.

Someone who starts out identifying as bi and realizes later in life that they identify more as gay or pan or straight is something categorically different and not an intrinsic component of the bi identity, in much the same way that a she/her trans woman who realizes after some time that they identify more as a they/she or they/them enby is categorically different from a genderfluid person whose pronouns and presentation shift from day to day or month to month. The genderfluid person is genderfluid the whole time, regardless of which presentation and pronouns they keep, and even if they keep to the same pronouns and presentation for a very long time.

The notion that the bi identity exists as a catch-all or holding area for people who haven’t sorted out their sexuality yet, and will some day switch into one identity or another is a stigma about bi people that bi people have been fighting against for as long as there have been bi people. It’s called bi erasure.

A bi woman who has only ever dated women is still bi. A bi woman who realizes later that she sees herself more as a lesbian is no longer a bi woman. She is a lesbian, no different than a straight woman who later realizes she’s actually a lesbian is now a lesbian. We do not see „becoming a lesbian“ as a core component of straight sexuality, even though it is the most common identity flow within female sexuality. In precisely the same way, we should not see „will eventually become straight or gay“ as a core component of the bi identity. They’re bi the whole time. It’s the whole point of the label!

Perhaps they should add a "C" into the LG??? string for Confused?

That‘s what the second Q is for.

 

[João III]

Mass deaths sticks to communists, but Manifest Destiny Genocides don't stick to Americans, and imperialists don't stick to W. Europeans.

"Real Manifest Destiny has never been tried"

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm not sure that communism functionally precludes imperialism. Obviously, definitionally it does. But practically, I'm less sure

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Mass deaths sticks to communists, but Manifest Destiny Genocides don't stick to Americans, and imperialists don't stick to W. Europeans.

two of those things (mostly) stopped > 100 years ago, the third continues its inflated body count even today. it is also by far the most consistent at killing its *own* population, and is pretty special in that way compared to other examples from history. speaking of genocide, we have an active on in china, not that much of the world seems to care much. that's not even quite "whataboutism", because if we actually cared about genocide of populations with any consistency we might, for example, treat china more similarly to how we're treating russia. but we are not.

nobody in world history has more blood on hands as a group than communists, and it isn't close. part of that is because communism is more recent and thus had more people to kill, but a big part of it is also that communism does not seem to learn from its mistakes and stop being communism.

though if you adjust for era, perhaps the mongols are still worse in terms of sheer carnage.

I'm not sure that communism functionally precludes imperialism. Obviously, definitionally it does. But practically, I'm less sure

the ussr's behavior suggests that it would try.

that said, as a model for governance it's so inept and destructive to its own country/population that its hard for most countries saddled with it to actually engage in something like imperialism. imperialism requires a semi-functional country with enough productivity and control of its own population to manage it.

 

[Samson]

two of those things (mostly) stopped > 100 years ago, the third continues its inflated body count even today.

For some values of imperialism.