• solsangraal@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    24 hours ago

    woke has a negative connotation for a reason

    yea, because right wing propaganda has turned it into a pejorative.

    i don’t know how i gave the impression that i give a fuck what maga thinks. but i don’t.

    if you think most people react positively to the phrase

    where did i say or imply that? you’re making assumptions based on what you feel, and those assumptions are wrong

    again, woke is a GOOD thing, and anyone who says otherwise is a sack of shit and should be ashamed

    • Tedesche@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      21 hours ago

      yea, because right wing propaganda has turned it into a pejorative.

      LOL, it hasn’t done that in its own. Stop giving them more influence than they’re due. Woke language even has librarais cringing, and it’s not because they oppose the message.

      Woke messaging has a problem with exaggeration, the same as all political messaging does. You guys say things like “all gender identities are social constructs,” when that’s clearly not the case. You say things like “all racism is due to systemic racism,” when clearly that’s not the case. People see this. They’re not stupid. They see that your assertions are wrong. I align with the message, I really do, but I’m tired of “woke” messengers fucking up our message with their hyperbolic bullshit. This plays right into Trump’s hands! And until you dipshits see it, he will continue to take advantage and win. So, I’m sorry if you don’t like me pointing it out, but you’re the fucking problem!

      • Ziglin (it/they)@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 hours ago

        I’ve never heard anyone say either of those things but I don’t have an argument against the first one based my understanding of gender.

        I think that parts of your statement are likely correct but I doubt a lot of it. The comment you replied to was correct though it is likely more nuanced. That is where your point could play in (which is what enables much exaggeration used by opponents) but your examples show me that you are quite biased (not that I am not) and not necessarily part of those who would be willing to listen to the whole thing.