The ruling class wants you to be literate enough to understand their written orders. And nothing more. True literacy is punk. True literacy is revolutionary.

If you look at this article and think “this is too long to read” you’re part of the target audience. Make the time.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    119 months ago

    Fwiw, I think you are also right too:-). I understand somewhat what the OP is trying to say here: you need to get over yourself, and put in some WORK to get you through the cognitive dissonance that reading is likely to cause. However, try saying that in ANY other context:

    • a white person to a black person: “uh, have you tried just getting over it? slavery was hundreds of years ago now, and it’s not like *I* ever owned any slaves” (note that there is just too much wrong here to even begin to unpack in a short space, but here I am focusing on how insensitive it is: even though black people would LOVE to simply “get over it”, especially for it to STOP HAPPENING, as in right this very moment, that is a PROCESS and they cannot simply snap their fingers and wish away an entire history built upon it, e.g. how police - and employers - will treat someone different based on color of skin)

    • an old man (or woman) to a young girl: “you know you would look prettier if you smiled more, right?” (okay… first, this is objectively true, but once again, it’s nowhere near the point - if she is frowning or whatever, simply telling her to plaster over her emotional state and “be pretty”, for the sake of the external viewer and once again, regardless of how she feels about the whole thing - is again extremely insensitive?)

    • a man to a woman: “sexism is a thing over the past, maybe if you want a higher salary you should just work harder?” (as is the theme here, this is like 90% untrue, even if it contains a germ of truth - some women can rise up, despite the shackles, and indeed you’ll never know if you do not try and all that but… dayum, how insensitive to phrase it like this?)

    In all of these, the packaging seems equally as important as the message itself, if not more so. Now, my own reply did take an unnecessarily aggressive stance, though it was intentionally modeled after the one I read out from OP’s wording, in an attempt to highlight it better (since some people can see some things more clearly when they are repeated back to them, perhaps they are too close to fully see the implications of their own stance?). And I dunno, sometimes that works… but it does seem far more likely that a gentler approach might result in a better chance of reception?

    For instance, each of my above instances could have been rephrased:

    • I hope that one day you find the peace to move beyond the hurts of the past. I know that you can’t right now b/c it’s still happening, but I do have hope that one day we can get there, together.
    • I am sorry that you are having a bad day - is there anything I can do to help? If not, I at least hope that it will get better for you.
    • You cannot control things beyond yourself, but if you want to make the attempt, I support you - go get it girl! :-P

    Rather than shame the already-victims, putting the onus on the receiver to do ALL the work, wouldn’t a true leader (or at least encourager) inspire their audience to do the desired task, as in empower them to do what they should want already to do? (dayum, that sounded really profound, - I better write that down!:-P)