"Wokeist" - When people talk about progressivism without acquaintance

[Akka]

I'm kind of out of examples here from memory, but I presume you can see the point.

My bad for not formulating my sentence better. I meant words which were not derogative but became so (on the whole, not just "used as insult" by a subset but considered as a normal descriptive by the rest, like the "liberal" example) due to being manipulated/twisted. Because so far, the only instances I saw is precisely the "SJW/Woke" case.

So I was asking for other examples which would illustrate this supposed ability to transform a descriptive into an insult (and again, seen as an insult by everyone including the people who self-identified as such, not just the person trying to use it as insults to begin with).

"Ecology", and "Feminism" are fairly old. "Feminism" as a word dates back to I think the 19th century and "Ecology" has always been a scientific term that I believe also comes from the enlightenment (although I'm not too sure, it is a specific field of science though) .

But "wokism" probably succeeded in being perverted because it was framed by conservatives as something that is a rabid phenomenon of the mob.

As said above, it seems that "woke" is the actual special case, not a rule that "the right" is somehow managing to distort the language and manipulate everyone into seeing in bad light.

 

[Evie]

Critical Race Theory - an academic descriptive that was turned into a boogeyman insult.

 

[Angst]

My bad for not formulating my sentence better. I meant words which were not derogative but became so (on the whole, not just "used as insult" by a subset but considered as a normal descriptive by the rest, like the "liberal" example) due to being manipulated/twisted. Because so far, the only instances I saw is precisely the "SJW/Woke" case.

So I was asking for other examples which would illustrate this supposed ability to transform a descriptive into an insult (and again, seen as an insult by everyone including the people who self-identified as such, not just the person trying to use it as insults to begin with).

As said above, it seems that "woke" is the actual special case, not a rule that "the right" is somehow managing to distort the language and manipulate everyone into seeing in bad light.

Ah specifically as an insult... Well in that case I believe there are fewer cases, yes. But I'm honestly not as interested in that as I am in general misappropriation. We might have talked past each other here. It's that the right keeps misappropriating language - while the left is unable to - that I find interesting.

 

[Lexicus]

As said above, it seems that "woke" is the actual special case, not a rule that "the right" is somehow managing to distort the language and manipulate everyone into seeing in bad light.

All the way back in the 90s, Newt Gingrich circulated a memo among Republican congressional candidates called "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control." So this isn't exactly a secret.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Critical Race Theory - an academic descriptive that was turned into a boogeyman insult.

critical theory began as and remained absolute trash generally. it doesn't matter what word(s) you put between or after it. using it with race makes one a racist, but its premise is a failure mode so swapping in other things doesn't make it functional.

 

[Senethro]

critical theory began as and remained absolute trash generally. it doesn't matter what word(s) you put between or after it. using it with race makes one a racist, but its premise is a failure mode so swapping in other things doesn't make it functional.

One day you should start a well founded thread about how all anti-racism is racism, because it is based on race.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

One day you should start a well founded thread about how all anti-racism is racism, because it is based on race.

don't need that, critical theory is explicitly racist in context of race. that is not what "anti-racism" means.

 

[Senethro]

don't need that, critical theory is explicitly racist in context of race. that is not what "anti-racism" means.

But you do kinda appear to think it anyway. Going by your refusal to ever acknowledge any structural or systemic racism in US, and immediate vocal opposition to any anti-racism that makes it into the public consciousness.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

One day you should start a well founded thread about how all anti-racism is racism, because it is based on race.

Dude's barely one step away from "anti racism is anti white" rhetoric

 

[TheMeInTeam]

But you do kinda appear to think it anyway. Going by your refusal to ever acknowledge any structural or systemic racism in US, and immediate vocal opposition to any anti-racism that makes it into the public consciousness.

if you're willing to misrepresent my stance on different things blatantly, itself a tactic favored among the "woke" as well, then sure.

in reality, however, requiring evidence for systemic racism + coherent standards to make that conclusion is not the same thing as "reject all existence of systemic racism".

normally, what happens instead is that someone blathers "x population is under/over-represented in y thing, thus systemic racism" and then gets butthurt when anybody points out that such isn't how statistics or reality work. bonus points if the same person doing this also openly advocates racism themselves, or ignores counter-evidence from z population that is not consistent with their assertions, or both.

nevertheless, the guy pointing out racist assertions as racist gets criticized for "opposition to anti-racism", lol.

 

[Gorbles]

bonus points if the same person doing this also openly advocates racism themselves, or ignore

When discussing "wokeness" or progressives generally, I don't see how this is a thing unless you redefine structural racism to include white people, who are the hegemonic social class in most, if not all, Western countries.

Which then just demonstrates you don't understand (or flat-out reject) structural racism. Or maybe you're just misrepresenting the people you're referring to. That'd be funny, given the context here.

 

[Berzerker]

if you're willing to misrepresent my stance on different things blatantly, itself a tactic favored among the "woke" as well, then sure.

in reality, however, requiring evidence for systemic racism + coherent standards to make that conclusion is not the same thing as "reject all existence of systemic racism".

normally, what happens instead is that someone blathers "x population is under/over-represented in y thing, thus systemic racism" and then gets butthurt when anybody points out that such isn't how statistics or reality work. bonus points if the same person doing this also openly advocates racism themselves, or ignores counter-evidence from z population that is not consistent with their assertions, or both.

nevertheless, the guy pointing out racist assertions as racist gets criticized for "opposition to anti-racism", lol.

woke: cops kill more black men - cops are racist

reality: cops kill more violent criminals, guess who tops that list

the drug war created more violent criminals and the woke just elected the war's author and architect

 

[Senethro]

woke: cops kill more black men - cops are racist

reality: cops kill more violent criminals, guess who tops that list

the drug war created more violent criminals and the woke just elected the war's author and architect

Assuming your diagnosis is correct, what is the treatment?

 

[Joij21]

the drug war created more violent criminals and the woke just elected the war's author and architect

Richard Nixon? Sorry, but he was a Republican.

 

[João III]

cops kill more violent criminals, guess who tops that list

The poor?

 

[Lexicus]

reality: cops kill more violent criminals, guess who tops that list

Cops kill more poor white people than any other demographic.

Also just want to note, as usual, the "libertarian" justifying murder by uniformed agents of the state

Richard Nixon? Sorry, but he was a Republican.

Yes he was.

Moderator Action: Edited to remove unnecessary content. Birdjaguar

 

[El_Machinae]

It's Berzerker's position that Biden (and Harris) have a longer history of using the law to be 'anti-drug' than Trump did, and therefore more complicity. The escalating marijuana arrests under Trump didn't sway that position.
Honestly, I have no interest in defending Biden and think he should be replaced ASAP, as long as the candidate can defeat the Trumpier aspects of the Republican party.

 

[Lexicus]

Honestly, I have no interest in defending Biden and think he should be replaced ASAP, as long as the candidate can defeat the Trumpier aspects of the Republican party.

What, by a Republican? That's literally insane

 

[Joij21]

Also just want to note, as usual, the "libertarian" justifying murder by uniformed agents of the state

Back in the old days before deputized policing, the Sheriff would just call up a posse to round up the wanted suspect either dead or alive.

In other words a literal angry mob would go hunt down the fugitive and sometimes they'd go a little overboard and lynch the suspect.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Assuming your diagnosis is correct, what is the treatment?

altering a culture that produces more violent criminals, assuming it's correct. who does that altering? in a free country, that's up to the individual communities.

"black" is not a monolithic group. maybe hard to grasp for some, but no really. when you further stratify, you might notice that some subgroups of black people do a lot better with police encounters than others.

nuance will also help notice when police actually are racist, because that does happen too and should also be corrected when it does. but nuance is not something woke likes to use, or even hear about.

It's Berzerker's position that Biden (and Harris) have a longer history of using the law to be 'anti-drug' than Trump did, and therefore more complicity. The escalating marijuana arrests under Trump didn't sway that position.

i'm not a fan of victimless crimes in general. or snowflake "victims", if trying to be more relevant to this thread.

unfortunately, this is one of those policy preferences that doesn't have a party to represent it (in us).