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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That’s exactly correct OP. It is also why MAGA and Republicans are seeking to destroy public education, particularly science, history, and critical thinking skills. Same for the MAGA-Republican crusade against top colleges and universities. The MAGA base is largely uneducated and therefore controllable. Republicans want to force the rest of the U.S. into the same dumb and incapable state. Then the wealthiest, who can afford private education, will hold the power and control the masses.

It’s a time-tested recipe for a society run by a small, rich, educated elite over the poor uneducated masses. Republicans have used social issues to fool MAGA into thinking these changes will benefit them. It’s sad for those suckers but the rest of us need to ensure it doesnt happen to the rest of us and our kids.

Not much left to destroy since school stopped with phonics, spelling, allowing close enough answers in math (eg, 1+1=3), school boards focuses on issues other than education, etc. The Dems do not have the high ground in education. Neither party deserves respect. Only people who don’t think believe in and trust the blue/red party.

Should we talk about what your MAGA side is doing to education? Red states have the poorest educational outcomes in America. Red states are ignoring reading and math proficiency while promoting Christian prayer, revisionist history and science denial.

So “red states” have lower educational outcomes than Baltimore City public schools?


Can you back this up with some sources?

DP and MAGA. Right now, it’s a true statement that blue states tend to have better educational outcomes. That's not the whole story, though. Cities tend to have poor educational outcomes in public schools. And, the trajectory of the states are starting to diverge, with blue states posting significant declines in test scores, possibly due to prolonged school closures for covid (cite: https://www.economist.com/united-states/2025/03/17/the-pandemic-hit-pupils-hardest-in-americas-democrat-leaning-states?utm_source=chatgpt.com). Meanwhile, southern red states are showing rapid increases, particularly in Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana and Florida. So while blue states have historically had better outcomes, their current policies are causing declines while red state current policies are causing increases.

People posture otherwise, but every serious person knows in their bones that the primary drivers of educational outcomes are things other than the political allegiance of local and national elected officials

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?

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

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.

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

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.

Anonymous wrote:MAGA will go down in history as the most uneducated and brainwashed Americans since those who convinced themselves that it was OK to own slaves. Say whatever you need to say to yourselves to sleep at night.

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.

Wait, woke is a tool the elite use to oppress the proles?

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.

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.

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”)