An interesting take. Not sure if it goes here.

    • @[email protected]OP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 day ago

      That’s my main gripe with the article. The term is used by right leaning people exclusively so just its usage hints that the speaker has racist, homophobic or xenophobic views.

  • @lath
    link
    English
    82 days ago

    Some points are good, some are ok, and some are bad.

    This part seems bad for me specifically.

    Twitter, which was arguably the hub of wokeness, was bought by Elon Musk in order to neutralize it, and he seems to have succeeded — and not, incidentally, by censoring left-wing users the way Twitter used to censor right-wing ones, but without censoring either.

    An example of how this “not censoring either” is going. https://lemmy.world/post/24259702

    Ideas look good on paper, but then reality drops by and shits on it.

  • @Idreamofcheesy
    link
    English
    41 day ago

    I had to stop when he said homophobia was coined specifically to be used for wokeness.

    Also he was fine with college women getting mad at sexual harassment, but as soon as it started threatening jobs, that was too far.

    Nah, this guy is just mad he can’t call people slurs.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    22 days ago

    Really good read. Not sure about his ending with having people prove that certain words cause harm though. There are no words that I can think of that cause harm.

    • @lath
      link
      English
      12 days ago

      Delay, Deny…

        • @lath
          link
          English
          12 days ago

          Because they do harm. Some are in favour of using them due to harming the people they don’t like. It’s still harm, reasonable or otherwise.