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 right still references the civil war. So maybe we just need a more charming woke, instead of the angry woke or the timid woke? Fact is language always changes and so do norms. This backlash on some cringe lingo is completely out of proportion. But what actually left us worse off is the takeover of the public conversation by extremist nutjobs.
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?
every 20 years
I think that's a bit of an understatement. Perhaps every 20 weeks?
edit: Thanks Obama?
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.
“Donald the dove. Hillary the hawk.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/01/opinion/sunday/donald-the-dove-hillary-the-hawk.html
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.
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.
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?
The nyt was literally foubded in a fit of reaction. They are always on the wrong side of history.