A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
RULES:
RELATED COMMUNITIES:
https://mas.to/@carnage4life/116370362572010064
the article is real, but I'm not gonna link it
The victim blaming is so disgusting. I heard people say shit like "Oh trans people asked for too much". Too much? Like what? Basic human rights? The right to exist?
They really think that if bullies get what they want they would just stop being bullies.
Trans people wanted to play recreational sports and that was too much for some people to handle.
I don't know if these people have encountered bullies on the playground
Anti-wokeness can be directly tied to many of society's current problems. So maybe that means the answer is an indirect "yes"?
I mean if people are going to go around thinking and empathizing with others we wouldn't be able to bomb the middle East every 20 years, would we?
But wokeness is something they made up to be a big problem so they could tear it down.
People still don't understand this was an artificially inflated debate.
The NYT haven't changed. They've been aligned with corporate greed and neo-conservative goals and attitudes for at least 40 years. Yes you can find individual articles that don't, but editorially they always have.
Though they always presented their image as 'social liberal progressive attitudes' and 'fiscal responsibility with social support', if you look at their actual reporting track record they've helped manufacture consent for almost every US war of the last 30+ years, and have consistently sided with the desires of whatever government is currently in power and fiscal conservative attitudes throughout.
I unsubscribed years ago when I finally saw them for what they are.
No, but billionaires have, especially the ones that own newspapers.
The NYT's editorial board is the CIA, change my mind.
RECENTLY?? Did you not see the 2 years of, "Biden incompetent because old, Kamila incompetent because woman" articles? It's blatantly been run by, or at least edited by, conservatives just based on the open front and center messaging. All legacy media is seemly operated by Republicans constantly thrashing the left and empowering the right. Making the left comfortable with openly supporting the fascist right has been their number 1 goal for the last several years.
Cheif Editor hasn't changed since 2016, and he is very conservative, but managing Editor Marc Lacey was appointed in 2022, he's kind of a tech-bro-profiteer type of manager, and in total it hosts about 1,700 writers with varying opinions. For example, 10 months ago they posted a collection of interviews with Fascism historians and experts fleeing the USA.
Basically, they will publish whatever generates the most clicks. The new Buzzfeed.
One thing I will say is the current publisher and owner, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., inherited the company from a family line who fled the holocaust, and they do seem to consistently appear pro-zionist.
They publish pretty much anything in the opinions section. It’s ridiculous
No. Trump did. Next question.
I did the thing. I read the transcript (it's a video chat/debate). Most of the woke they talk about hating is the older stuff that is super cringe or feels racist, like "person of color" or micro aggressions. It does cover that the anti-woke crowd is mostly about being openly racist/sexist or getting to say slurs.
The answer here seems to be leaning towards yes. The creations of labels that the people you were labeling didn't even like led to backlash, see Latinx or BIPOC. Coming up with euphemisms to justify removing white people from conferences or panels because there weren't minorities, instead of focusing on the opinions and thoughts represented. The woke crowd created problems that pushed people away that may have mostly agreed with them.
Ultimately it seems like you're opinion of woke and the definition you give it depends on when you became politically conscious. If it was in the 90e and early 2000s, it's a more negative view of the progressive definition of woke. If it was during the Obama years, you think it's more of a maga creation as a way to be more openly racist.
The LatinX stuff is almost entirely manufactured agitprop, just like the CRT shit. Actual Hispanic people do sometimes use a soft "eh" instead of of a hard "o" or "a" for disambiguation and the latinX thing was more an observation and academic discussion of this than any real attempt at prescriptive language. Literally the only people who pushed that narrative were the ones trying to weaponize it.
There's been an effort to downplay the attempts made after massive backlash, especially with Latinx. That doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Nah, I was there. I remember it. At best it was a broader conversation about whether language should be more inclusive, which conservatives took as a personal attack because they lack the ability to understand abstract concepts. And there may have been a handful of people who made a personal decision to adopt the term. There was never anyone scolding people for not saying LatinX.
I doubt anyone was ever shamed for not using Latinx, the problem there was more a mass amount of people that felt it was a way to erase their culture. It's a very wasp thing to create a term for a people and declare the most inclusive term without actually consulting anyone it addresses.
Woke is now a made up term. It no longer has a clear definition. It no longer has a consistent meaning. It does not "depend on when you became politically conscious." it depends on if you understand and recognize yellow journalism as a thought terminating practice rather than an intelligent one.
There is no debate here. The entire conversation in the article is based on a false perspective of history as determined by the propaganda written about it rather than true events.
This article might as well be titled, "Did Jews leave us worse off?"
Because it's literally written from the same falsely framed perspective as that statement is, and you unfortunately carried it further.
Specifically, from your summary:
"The woke crowd created problems that pushed people away that may have mostly agreed with them."
Is not a real thing that happened. This is history as perceived by its oppressors. You might as well be stating, "The Jews created problems that pushed people away that may have mostly agreed with them."
That problem Jews created? Existing. The problem "woke" created? Existing.
Same with "Illegal Immigrants." Same with "Trans" Same with every single marginalized group our current oligarchs can easily blame to shift the conversation away from them stealing your tax dollars through Reagonomics to start a international child sex trafficking network.
They're framing history as if the actions of these people and concepts are bad, despite the bad actions ONLY existing within the Propaganda they created.
Did trans people create bathroom problems that pushed people into passing bathroom laws and banning them? Or did they exist at a time there was a constant stream of propaganda saying they were?
Okay. Now ask yourself the same about "woke." Did they actually create problems? Or did their voices exist at a time when there was a constant stream of propaganda saying they were creating a problem?
That's why there's a negative shift in perspective between the 90's and 2000's. That's when Fox News and post 9-11 conservative propaganda started. There was no magical political awakening. It was when the fairness doctrine died and letting idiots on TV say the dumbest most un-American and unintelligent things imaginable became legal. Now to the point where propaganda is the primary perspective coming from nearly all our news channels, so we as a society can no longer easily determine what's real from what's a paid talking point.
So that's why Science is now questionable. Why our Education is now questionable. And the sustainability of our economy is now questionable.
Having intelligent discussions about all of those things was what "woke" started as. And our oligarchs hated that it always boiled down to them needing to pay more to improve them. So instead of paying for a country with better science, education, and a healthy economy, they paid to convince you all those things weren't needed, or were under attack by "woke" and that's why they were deteriorating.
So now we can't have a sincere discussion about politics without needing to first overcome the needlessly unintelligent shit people believe is real.
Like the concept that "woke" pushed anyone away instead of the manufactured propaganda around it that did. We're cooked if every political conversation needs to start with a discussion on whats real or paid propaganda, but here we are.
EDIT: Updated my opening statement to be more clear on my position and that there is indeed an actual real meaning to woke.
Woke is a made up term. It has no definition. It has no consistent meaning.
There is a lot of good stuff in your comment, but this opening is extremely problematic. Woke was created in the 1930s with a clear intended definition, which was re-codified in court by DeSantis’ own fascist lawyers.
“The belief there are systemic injustices in America, and the need to address them.”
That is it. Anyone who uses a completely different definition — especially as a pejorative — is simply a racist, bigoted nazi slur. It’s as simple as that.
Woke was created in the 1930s with a clear intended definition, which was re-codified in court by DeSantis’ own fascist lawyers.
100% agree with this statement. I do not agree with the current definition from DeSantis' fascist lawyers and failed to make that clear in my opening.
I SHOULD have described the word as follows instead:
Woke is NOW a made up term. It has no CLEAR definition anymore. It NOW has no consistent meaning.
That's much more clear for what I was going for, so apologies for the confusion!
Theyre asking the questions their fascist masters want them to ask
The evil black lesbians did this (and Biden).
Whoah how did you type those words that are illegal to say? You must be so brave
No, the Sociopathic MAGA response to kindness and empathy is the problem.
It's an opinion piece, and those are intended to drive engagement. That's the point of publishing them, going back to the start of newspapers. It's rage bait, pure and simple. Many opinion pieces can fall into that category, and have for generations.
Just because it's an opinion, doesn't mean it can't be wrong.
Whenever someone posts these ridiculous headlines and doesn't explain what the actual article is about, I find that around 80% of the time, the opinion presented is actually decently-made or more nuanced than initially assumed, and the title is just phrased that way for clicks.
In some publications, article authors don't even get to choose their own titles. They write the articles; marketing department writes the titles.
It's also frustrating when someone takes something from the Opinion column and reacts as if it's an actual news article.
Anything to distract the masses from the fact that the oligarchs are the reason their lives are shitty
This is a great example of Betteridge's law of headlines. Did wokeness leave us worse off? No.
The nyt was literally foubded in a fit of reaction. They are always on the wrong side of history.
My stance is: you can say what you like, but I am going to judge you by your words.
I can't stand that line of "oooh, you can't say anything these days", it's absolute bullshit.
Recently? The newspaper that had a public love affair with Mussolini?