Woke is not negative

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MAGA stole the term and uses it negatively. Do they even know what it really means? It is simply someone who is informed, educated and conscious of social injustice, prejudice, oppression and inequality. So they dont want to be informed and educated? We are evil and wrong to be informed and educated about society? We let MAGA steal this word and use it negatively just like we let them steal the American flag as if it only represents them.

Woke is very negative.
The maga didn't make it negative.
The ones calling everybody racist and transphobes and cancelling people were the ones that made it negative.

Wrong.

How ignorant of you.

This really epitomizes the issue people have with wokeness. If you look at this thread, the posters on the left aren't actually engaging with any of the answers posted by people critical of wokeness. They just saying things like this-- no analysis offered, entirely designed to insult and ridicule with no element of persuasion. And maybe most interestingly, the level of rhetoric is really fairly simplistic, yet they accuse everyone else of being uneducated and ignorant despite their own posts suggesting that they are the least educated posters.

What?

That how DCUM argues against anything they disagree with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MAGA stole the term and uses it negatively. Do they even know what it really means? It is simply someone who is informed, educated and conscious of social injustice, prejudice, oppression and inequality. So they dont want to be informed and educated? We are evil and wrong to be informed and educated about society? We let MAGA steal this word and use it negatively just like we let them steal the American flag as if it only represents them.

Within the discipline of linguistics, there’s a longstanding and fundamental disagreement between so-called descriptivists and so-called prescriptivists. Descriptivists (tend to dominate academia) believe that language is how you use it; if the Latin fabulare evolves into Spanish hablar, so be it and that’s the order of things. Prescriptivists (who tend to dominate academia, say, professional editing and publishing) believe that there are “proper” standards that are rooted in some exogenous source of authority that determine what is right.

The take in this thread is a dumb melange of the two. It presupposes that the ungrammatical use of a transitive verb’s simple past form (wake —> woke) may be permissibly substituted in place of a similar intransitive verb’s past passive participle (awake —> awakened) when employed in the context of social commentary but that that same word may not permissibly carry a connotation ascribed to it by its skeptics. This is a “heads-I-win, tails-you-lose” argument manufactured to impose a progressive orthodoxy on a narrow slice of linguistics.

Surely those who welcome thoughtful critiques of power structures will recognize I am right!

It is easier to complain about MAGA use of woke than to admit that wokism was and is a tool of the elites used to strip power, including the most basic power of language, from the lower classes. It is and always was a movement designed to keep power centralized and to keep the working classes from unifying.

Personally, I think elites’ arrogation of the right to revise rules of language is one of the more effective strategies they’ve pursued when you layer on the ease of gaslighting people who notice (“lol, triggered by pronouns much?”, “lol, yeah, it’s a real *war* on Christmas, okay bub”, “the word ‘partner’ is simply more inclusive, not a big deal”)

PP here and I agree. The use of woke to police language was and is an extremely effective strategy the elite used and still use to continue their repression of the working classes. Part of the anger and bewilderment from people like OP is that there has been a small reclamation of language from the wealthy elites. OP is angry that her linguistic tool of oppression is slightly less effective than it used to be.

Spot on

Genuinely asking - how does being aware of offensive, racist, misogynistic, homophobic language repress the working class?

That’s actually not the language being policed. It’s words like “she” and “husband.” If it were offensive, racist, etc. stuff, no one would care

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump has gotten millions of Christians to hate Jesus. I mean it's brilliant, and so cruel, if you think about it.

Democrats have gotten millions of US workers to abandoned the party of labor. Just amazing.

But you got your million H1Bs and OPTs working cheaply for Silicon Valley masters.

Republicans didn't do that? Just look at Trump himself - he brought in tons of foreign labor on visa to work at Mar A Lago and his golf resorts to work there cheaply and undercut American labor. Even two of his wives, Ivana and Melania, were foreign imports.

And when he became President he stopped looking for his own benefit, and was instead helping Americans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MAGA stole the term and uses it negatively. Do they even know what it really means? It is simply someone who is informed, educated and conscious of social injustice, prejudice, oppression and inequality. So they dont want to be informed and educated? We are evil and wrong to be informed and educated about society? We let MAGA steal this word and use it negatively just like we let them steal the American flag as if it only represents them.

MAGA isn’t the only group to have stolen the word from you. Many people use it along with an eye roll when they have to suffer under the virtue signalers’ conceited speeches.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MAGA stole the term and uses it negatively. Do they even know what it really means? It is simply someone who is informed, educated and conscious of social injustice, prejudice, oppression and inequality. So they dont want to be informed and educated? We are evil and wrong to be informed and educated about society? We let MAGA steal this word and use it negatively just like we let them steal the American flag as if it only represents them.

Within the discipline of linguistics, there’s a longstanding and fundamental disagreement between so-called descriptivists and so-called prescriptivists. Descriptivists (tend to dominate academia) believe that language is how you use it; if the Latin fabulare evolves into Spanish hablar, so be it and that’s the order of things. Prescriptivists (who tend to dominate academia, say, professional editing and publishing) believe that there are “proper” standards that are rooted in some exogenous source of authority that determine what is right.

The take in this thread is a dumb melange of the two. It presupposes that the ungrammatical use of a transitive verb’s simple past form (wake —> woke) may be permissibly substituted in place of a similar intransitive verb’s past passive participle (awake —> awakened) when employed in the context of social commentary but that that same word may not permissibly carry a connotation ascribed to it by its skeptics. This is a “heads-I-win, tails-you-lose” argument manufactured to impose a progressive orthodoxy on a narrow slice of linguistics.

Surely those who welcome thoughtful critiques of power structures will recognize I am right!

It is easier to complain about MAGA use of woke than to admit that wokism was and is a tool of the elites used to strip power, including the most basic power of language, from the lower classes. It is and always was a movement designed to keep power centralized and to keep the working classes from unifying.

Personally, I think elites’ arrogation of the right to revise rules of language is one of the more effective strategies they’ve pursued when you layer on the ease of gaslighting people who notice (“lol, triggered by pronouns much?”, “lol, yeah, it’s a real *war* on Christmas, okay bub”, “the word ‘partner’ is simply more inclusive, not a big deal”)

PP here and I agree. The use of woke to police language was and is an extremely effective strategy the elite used and still use to continue their repression of the working classes. Part of the anger and bewilderment from people like OP is that there has been a small reclamation of language from the wealthy elites. OP is angry that her linguistic tool of oppression is slightly less effective than it used to be.

Spot on

Genuinely asking - how does being aware of offensive, racist, misogynistic, homophobic language repress the working class?

That’s actually not the language being policed. It’s words like “she” and “husband.” If it were offensive, racist, etc. stuff, no one would care

I'm 60 years old and have lived in blue cities my whole life and have never once been policed for using "she" or "husband." For that matter, the only time anyone ever policed me in my language in the last 10 years was getting DM'ed in Teams because I spoke a blunt truth about things like a lack of sound technical strategy in the presence of senior management, but I was later apologized to for it because management appreciated my candor and honesty. And that includes a career of 25 years in the private sector and 15 years in government. And I'm one who is never shy to speak my mind and call things out when I think there's a problem

Some of you are buried far too deep in the rabbit holes of right wing hysteria to know actual reality from what they claim to tell you is reality down there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump has gotten millions of Christians to hate Jesus. I mean it's brilliant, and so cruel, if you think about it.

Democrats have gotten millions of US workers to abandoned the party of labor. Just amazing.

But you got your million H1Bs and OPTs working cheaply for Silicon Valley masters.

Republicans didn't do that? Just look at Trump himself - he brought in tons of foreign labor on visa to work at Mar A Lago and his golf resorts to work there cheaply and undercut American labor. Even two of his wives, Ivana and Melania, were foreign imports.

And when he became President he stopped looking for his own benefit, and was instead helping Americans.

Trump... helping Americans? BAHAHAAAAHAAHAAA!

You don't actually BELIEVE that, do you?

That's HYSTERICAL!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MAGA stole the term and uses it negatively. Do they even know what it really means? It is simply someone who is informed, educated and conscious of social injustice, prejudice, oppression and inequality. So they dont want to be informed and educated? We are evil and wrong to be informed and educated about society? We let MAGA steal this word and use it negatively just like we let them steal the American flag as if it only represents them.

Within the discipline of linguistics, there’s a longstanding and fundamental disagreement between so-called descriptivists and so-called prescriptivists. Descriptivists (tend to dominate academia) believe that language is how you use it; if the Latin fabulare evolves into Spanish hablar, so be it and that’s the order of things. Prescriptivists (who tend to dominate academia, say, professional editing and publishing) believe that there are “proper” standards that are rooted in some exogenous source of authority that determine what is right.

The take in this thread is a dumb melange of the two. It presupposes that the ungrammatical use of a transitive verb’s simple past form (wake —> woke) may be permissibly substituted in place of a similar intransitive verb’s past passive participle (awake —> awakened) when employed in the context of social commentary but that that same word may not permissibly carry a connotation ascribed to it by its skeptics. This is a “heads-I-win, tails-you-lose” argument manufactured to impose a progressive orthodoxy on a narrow slice of linguistics.

Surely those who welcome thoughtful critiques of power structures will recognize I am right!

It is easier to complain about MAGA use of woke than to admit that wokism was and is a tool of the elites used to strip power, including the most basic power of language, from the lower classes. It is and always was a movement designed to keep power centralized and to keep the working classes from unifying.

Personally, I think elites’ arrogation of the right to revise rules of language is one of the more effective strategies they’ve pursued when you layer on the ease of gaslighting people who notice (“lol, triggered by pronouns much?”, “lol, yeah, it’s a real *war* on Christmas, okay bub”, “the word ‘partner’ is simply more inclusive, not a big deal”)

PP here and I agree. The use of woke to police language was and is an extremely effective strategy the elite used and still use to continue their repression of the working classes. Part of the anger and bewilderment from people like OP is that there has been a small reclamation of language from the wealthy elites. OP is angry that her linguistic tool of oppression is slightly less effective than it used to be.

Spot on

Genuinely asking - how does being aware of offensive, racist, misogynistic, homophobic language repress the working class?

That’s actually not the language being policed. It’s words like “she” and “husband.” If it were offensive, racist, etc. stuff, no one would care

I'm 60 years old and have lived in blue cities my whole life and have never once been policed for using "she" or "husband." For that matter, the only time anyone ever policed me in my language in the last 10 years was getting DM'ed in Teams because I spoke a blunt truth about things like a lack of sound technical strategy in the presence of senior management, but I was later apologized to for it because management appreciated my candor and honesty. And that includes a career of 25 years in the private sector and 15 years in government. And I'm one who is never shy to speak my mind and call things out when I think there's a problem

Some of you are buried far too deep in the rabbit holes of right wing hysteria to know actual reality from what they claim to tell you is reality down there.

Sounds like someone is trying to deny our lived experiences. How dare you.

[Anonymous]

DEI..... "Didn't Earn It"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DEI..... "Didn't Earn It"

Is that you, Pete Hegseth?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MAGA stole the term and uses it negatively. Do they even know what it really means? It is simply someone who is informed, educated and conscious of social injustice, prejudice, oppression and inequality. So they dont want to be informed and educated? We are evil and wrong to be informed and educated about society? We let MAGA steal this word and use it negatively just like we let them steal the American flag as if it only represents them.

Within the discipline of linguistics, there’s a longstanding and fundamental disagreement between so-called descriptivists and so-called prescriptivists. Descriptivists (tend to dominate academia) believe that language is how you use it; if the Latin fabulare evolves into Spanish hablar, so be it and that’s the order of things. Prescriptivists (who tend to dominate academia, say, professional editing and publishing) believe that there are “proper” standards that are rooted in some exogenous source of authority that determine what is right.

The take in this thread is a dumb melange of the two. It presupposes that the ungrammatical use of a transitive verb’s simple past form (wake —> woke) may be permissibly substituted in place of a similar intransitive verb’s past passive participle (awake —> awakened) when employed in the context of social commentary but that that same word may not permissibly carry a connotation ascribed to it by its skeptics. This is a “heads-I-win, tails-you-lose” argument manufactured to impose a progressive orthodoxy on a narrow slice of linguistics.

Surely those who welcome thoughtful critiques of power structures will recognize I am right!

It is easier to complain about MAGA use of woke than to admit that wokism was and is a tool of the elites used to strip power, including the most basic power of language, from the lower classes. It is and always was a movement designed to keep power centralized and to keep the working classes from unifying.

Personally, I think elites’ arrogation of the right to revise rules of language is one of the more effective strategies they’ve pursued when you layer on the ease of gaslighting people who notice (“lol, triggered by pronouns much?”, “lol, yeah, it’s a real *war* on Christmas, okay bub”, “the word ‘partner’ is simply more inclusive, not a big deal”)

PP here and I agree. The use of woke to police language was and is an extremely effective strategy the elite used and still use to continue their repression of the working classes. Part of the anger and bewilderment from people like OP is that there has been a small reclamation of language from the wealthy elites. OP is angry that her linguistic tool of oppression is slightly less effective than it used to be.

Spot on

Genuinely asking - how does being aware of offensive, racist, misogynistic, homophobic language repress the working class?

That’s actually not the language being policed. It’s words like “she” and “husband.” If it were offensive, racist, etc. stuff, no one would care

I'm 60 years old and have lived in blue cities my whole life and have never once been policed for using "she" or "husband." For that matter, the only time anyone ever policed me in my language in the last 10 years was getting DM'ed in Teams because I spoke a blunt truth about things like a lack of sound technical strategy in the presence of senior management, but I was later apologized to for it because management appreciated my candor and honesty. And that includes a career of 25 years in the private sector and 15 years in government. And I'm one who is never shy to speak my mind and call things out when I think there's a problem

Some of you are buried far too deep in the rabbit holes of right wing hysteria to know actual reality from what they claim to tell you is reality down there.

+100.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MAGA stole the term and uses it negatively. Do they even know what it really means? It is simply someone who is informed, educated and conscious of social injustice, prejudice, oppression and inequality. So they dont want to be informed and educated? We are evil and wrong to be informed and educated about society? We let MAGA steal this word and use it negatively just like we let them steal the American flag as if it only represents them.

Within the discipline of linguistics, there’s a longstanding and fundamental disagreement between so-called descriptivists and so-called prescriptivists. Descriptivists (tend to dominate academia) believe that language is how you use it; if the Latin fabulare evolves into Spanish hablar, so be it and that’s the order of things. Prescriptivists (who tend to dominate academia, say, professional editing and publishing) believe that there are “proper” standards that are rooted in some exogenous source of authority that determine what is right.

The take in this thread is a dumb melange of the two. It presupposes that the ungrammatical use of a transitive verb’s simple past form (wake —> woke) may be permissibly substituted in place of a similar intransitive verb’s past passive participle (awake —> awakened) when employed in the context of social commentary but that that same word may not permissibly carry a connotation ascribed to it by its skeptics. This is a “heads-I-win, tails-you-lose” argument manufactured to impose a progressive orthodoxy on a narrow slice of linguistics.

Surely those who welcome thoughtful critiques of power structures will recognize I am right!

It is easier to complain about MAGA use of woke than to admit that wokism was and is a tool of the elites used to strip power, including the most basic power of language, from the lower classes. It is and always was a movement designed to keep power centralized and to keep the working classes from unifying.

Personally, I think elites’ arrogation of the right to revise rules of language is one of the more effective strategies they’ve pursued when you layer on the ease of gaslighting people who notice (“lol, triggered by pronouns much?”, “lol, yeah, it’s a real *war* on Christmas, okay bub”, “the word ‘partner’ is simply more inclusive, not a big deal”)

PP here and I agree. The use of woke to police language was and is an extremely effective strategy the elite used and still use to continue their repression of the working classes. Part of the anger and bewilderment from people like OP is that there has been a small reclamation of language from the wealthy elites. OP is angry that her linguistic tool of oppression is slightly less effective than it used to be.

Spot on

Genuinely asking - how does being aware of offensive, racist, misogynistic, homophobic language repress the working class?

That’s actually not the language being policed. It’s words like “she” and “husband.” If it were offensive, racist, etc. stuff, no one would care

I'm 60 years old and have lived in blue cities my whole life and have never once been policed for using "she" or "husband." For that matter, the only time anyone ever policed me in my language in the last 10 years was getting DM'ed in Teams because I spoke a blunt truth about things like a lack of sound technical strategy in the presence of senior management, but I was later apologized to for it because management appreciated my candor and honesty. And that includes a career of 25 years in the private sector and 15 years in government. And I'm one who is never shy to speak my mind and call things out when I think there's a problem

Some of you are buried far too deep in the rabbit holes of right wing hysteria to know actual reality from what they claim to tell you is reality down there.

Sounds like someone is trying to deny our lived experiences. How dare you.

Please share your specific examples.

[Anonymous]

there is no denying that the term is politicized. only far left wingers use it or defend it. I doubt that any conservative or moderate would ever say they are woke and act like that is good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MAGA stole the term and uses it negatively. Do they even know what it really means? It is simply someone who is informed, educated and conscious of social injustice, prejudice, oppression and inequality. So they dont want to be informed and educated? We are evil and wrong to be informed and educated about society? We let MAGA steal this word and use it negatively just like we let them steal the American flag as if it only represents them.

Within the discipline of linguistics, there’s a longstanding and fundamental disagreement between so-called descriptivists and so-called prescriptivists. Descriptivists (tend to dominate academia) believe that language is how you use it; if the Latin fabulare evolves into Spanish hablar, so be it and that’s the order of things. Prescriptivists (who tend to dominate academia, say, professional editing and publishing) believe that there are “proper” standards that are rooted in some exogenous source of authority that determine what is right.

The take in this thread is a dumb melange of the two. It presupposes that the ungrammatical use of a transitive verb’s simple past form (wake —> woke) may be permissibly substituted in place of a similar intransitive verb’s past passive participle (awake —> awakened) when employed in the context of social commentary but that that same word may not permissibly carry a connotation ascribed to it by its skeptics. This is a “heads-I-win, tails-you-lose” argument manufactured to impose a progressive orthodoxy on a narrow slice of linguistics.

Surely those who welcome thoughtful critiques of power structures will recognize I am right!

It is easier to complain about MAGA use of woke than to admit that wokism was and is a tool of the elites used to strip power, including the most basic power of language, from the lower classes. It is and always was a movement designed to keep power centralized and to keep the working classes from unifying.

Personally, I think elites’ arrogation of the right to revise rules of language is one of the more effective strategies they’ve pursued when you layer on the ease of gaslighting people who notice (“lol, triggered by pronouns much?”, “lol, yeah, it’s a real *war* on Christmas, okay bub”, “the word ‘partner’ is simply more inclusive, not a big deal”)

PP here and I agree. The use of woke to police language was and is an extremely effective strategy the elite used and still use to continue their repression of the working classes. Part of the anger and bewilderment from people like OP is that there has been a small reclamation of language from the wealthy elites. OP is angry that her linguistic tool of oppression is slightly less effective than it used to be.

Spot on

Genuinely asking - how does being aware of offensive, racist, misogynistic, homophobic language repress the working class?

That’s actually not the language being policed. It’s words like “she” and “husband.” If it were offensive, racist, etc. stuff, no one would care

I'm 60 years old and have lived in blue cities my whole life and have never once been policed for using "she" or "husband." For that matter, the only time anyone ever policed me in my language in the last 10 years was getting DM'ed in Teams because I spoke a blunt truth about things like a lack of sound technical strategy in the presence of senior management, but I was later apologized to for it because management appreciated my candor and honesty. And that includes a career of 25 years in the private sector and 15 years in government. And I'm one who is never shy to speak my mind and call things out when I think there's a problem

Some of you are buried far too deep in the rabbit holes of right wing hysteria to know actual reality from what they claim to tell you is reality down there.

Sounds like someone is trying to deny our lived experiences. How dare you.

Please share your specific examples.

Dp. A previous employer of mine was led by millennials and most employees were very left-leaning. HR set up a slack-bot that chastised anyone who used the word “guys”. The only reason it got shut down was because one of the heads of the cybersecurity unit was female and said it was annoying and asked it to be removed. I’ll note that the “furries” channel remained up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MAGA stole the term and uses it negatively. Do they even know what it really means? It is simply someone who is informed, educated and conscious of social injustice, prejudice, oppression and inequality. So they dont want to be informed and educated? We are evil and wrong to be informed and educated about society? We let MAGA steal this word and use it negatively just like we let them steal the American flag as if it only represents them.

Within the discipline of linguistics, there’s a longstanding and fundamental disagreement between so-called descriptivists and so-called prescriptivists. Descriptivists (tend to dominate academia) believe that language is how you use it; if the Latin fabulare evolves into Spanish hablar, so be it and that’s the order of things. Prescriptivists (who tend to dominate academia, say, professional editing and publishing) believe that there are “proper” standards that are rooted in some exogenous source of authority that determine what is right.

The take in this thread is a dumb melange of the two. It presupposes that the ungrammatical use of a transitive verb’s simple past form (wake —> woke) may be permissibly substituted in place of a similar intransitive verb’s past passive participle (awake —> awakened) when employed in the context of social commentary but that that same word may not permissibly carry a connotation ascribed to it by its skeptics. This is a “heads-I-win, tails-you-lose” argument manufactured to impose a progressive orthodoxy on a narrow slice of linguistics.

Surely those who welcome thoughtful critiques of power structures will recognize I am right!

It is easier to complain about MAGA use of woke than to admit that wokism was and is a tool of the elites used to strip power, including the most basic power of language, from the lower classes. It is and always was a movement designed to keep power centralized and to keep the working classes from unifying.

Personally, I think elites’ arrogation of the right to revise rules of language is one of the more effective strategies they’ve pursued when you layer on the ease of gaslighting people who notice (“lol, triggered by pronouns much?”, “lol, yeah, it’s a real *war* on Christmas, okay bub”, “the word ‘partner’ is simply more inclusive, not a big deal”)

PP here and I agree. The use of woke to police language was and is an extremely effective strategy the elite used and still use to continue their repression of the working classes. Part of the anger and bewilderment from people like OP is that there has been a small reclamation of language from the wealthy elites. OP is angry that her linguistic tool of oppression is slightly less effective than it used to be.

Spot on

Genuinely asking - how does being aware of offensive, racist, misogynistic, homophobic language repress the working class?

That’s actually not the language being policed. It’s words like “she” and “husband.” If it were offensive, racist, etc. stuff, no one would care

I'm 60 years old and have lived in blue cities my whole life and have never once been policed for using "she" or "husband." For that matter, the only time anyone ever policed me in my language in the last 10 years was getting DM'ed in Teams because I spoke a blunt truth about things like a lack of sound technical strategy in the presence of senior management, but I was later apologized to for it because management appreciated my candor and honesty. And that includes a career of 25 years in the private sector and 15 years in government. And I'm one who is never shy to speak my mind and call things out when I think there's a problem

Some of you are buried far too deep in the rabbit holes of right wing hysteria to know actual reality from what they claim to tell you is reality down there.

Sounds like someone is trying to deny our lived experiences. How dare you.

LOL I'll take "things that didn't happen" for $600, Alex.

You seem to be confusing made-up comic book stories about being policed and oppressed that you read on right wing message boards with your "lived experiences."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MAGA stole the term and uses it negatively. Do they even know what it really means? It is simply someone who is informed, educated and conscious of social injustice, prejudice, oppression and inequality. So they dont want to be informed and educated? We are evil and wrong to be informed and educated about society? We let MAGA steal this word and use it negatively just like we let them steal the American flag as if it only represents them.

Within the discipline of linguistics, there’s a longstanding and fundamental disagreement between so-called descriptivists and so-called prescriptivists. Descriptivists (tend to dominate academia) believe that language is how you use it; if the Latin fabulare evolves into Spanish hablar, so be it and that’s the order of things. Prescriptivists (who tend to dominate academia, say, professional editing and publishing) believe that there are “proper” standards that are rooted in some exogenous source of authority that determine what is right.

The take in this thread is a dumb melange of the two. It presupposes that the ungrammatical use of a transitive verb’s simple past form (wake —> woke) may be permissibly substituted in place of a similar intransitive verb’s past passive participle (awake —> awakened) when employed in the context of social commentary but that that same word may not permissibly carry a connotation ascribed to it by its skeptics. This is a “heads-I-win, tails-you-lose” argument manufactured to impose a progressive orthodoxy on a narrow slice of linguistics.

Surely those who welcome thoughtful critiques of power structures will recognize I am right!

It is easier to complain about MAGA use of woke than to admit that wokism was and is a tool of the elites used to strip power, including the most basic power of language, from the lower classes. It is and always was a movement designed to keep power centralized and to keep the working classes from unifying.

Personally, I think elites’ arrogation of the right to revise rules of language is one of the more effective strategies they’ve pursued when you layer on the ease of gaslighting people who notice (“lol, triggered by pronouns much?”, “lol, yeah, it’s a real *war* on Christmas, okay bub”, “the word ‘partner’ is simply more inclusive, not a big deal”)

PP here and I agree. The use of woke to police language was and is an extremely effective strategy the elite used and still use to continue their repression of the working classes. Part of the anger and bewilderment from people like OP is that there has been a small reclamation of language from the wealthy elites. OP is angry that her linguistic tool of oppression is slightly less effective than it used to be.

Spot on

Genuinely asking - how does being aware of offensive, racist, misogynistic, homophobic language repress the working class?

That’s actually not the language being policed. It’s words like “she” and “husband.” If it were offensive, racist, etc. stuff, no one would care

I'm 60 years old and have lived in blue cities my whole life and have never once been policed for using "she" or "husband." For that matter, the only time anyone ever policed me in my language in the last 10 years was getting DM'ed in Teams because I spoke a blunt truth about things like a lack of sound technical strategy in the presence of senior management, but I was later apologized to for it because management appreciated my candor and honesty. And that includes a career of 25 years in the private sector and 15 years in government. And I'm one who is never shy to speak my mind and call things out when I think there's a problem

Some of you are buried far too deep in the rabbit holes of right wing hysteria to know actual reality from what they claim to tell you is reality down there.

Sounds like someone is trying to deny our lived experiences. How dare you.

Please share your specific examples.

Dp. A previous employer of mine was led by millennials and most employees were very left-leaning. HR set up a slack-bot that chastised anyone who used the word “guys”. The only reason it got shut down was because one of the heads of the cybersecurity unit was female and said it was annoying and asked it to be removed. I’ll note that the “furries” channel remained up.

Dubious story. I don't buy it. But even if it were true, it fails to rise to the level of evidence of "elites weaponizing language to suppress the working class," you're going to need something a lot more subtantial than some flaky anecdote about slack channels and bots.