I think you assume that I think you have that mindset, not really, that is why I wanted you to clarify. What you need to realize here is that “those people” are the ones that vote for the ones that we should not ignore or act as if they are “just blowhards”.
We also need to remember that how we treat others is a reflection of our own character, not theirs. We don’t have to be “nice”, but shittiness and snarkiness won’t accomplish anything useful. Not saying you do that, but those who do so by default are why “woke” people are often not taken seriously. It’s also how potential allies are chased away. After all, butthurt is the sustenance of trolls. Starve them, and you disempower them. Lash out, and they get just what they seek.
Well that is a clarification I did not expect, there is still a bit to unpack there, are you not aware that “woke” is nor being used much now by minorities and left leaning people because of the hijacked meaning the right put on it?
The way you use it here shows the problem when many centrists (and some on the left) ignore the “dog whistle” component of using “woke” as a slur. Also, that post is assuming that snarkiness is a property of people or organizations that just want to give a fair deal to minorities. One should not forget that when one side (the left) got the memo on discouraging the use of “woke”, what it left is then the right wingers that use that word to tell groups and organizations (with a lot of white people) to not be “minority lovers”. And then also left are centrists that do fall for the feigned ignorance of the right wing talking points and ignore the dog whistle.
Sure, but do you see the double standard you’re endorsing here? When someone on the right is racist/sexist/homophobic, they’re “not the norm.” When someone on the left is pushy judgmental, it’s “the problem with wokeism.” If there’s one person on the left who’s an asshole, it taints the entire left. If there’s one person on the right who isn’t as asshole, it redeems the entire right.
I keep seeing this asserted, and yet I know plenty of black people who talk dismissively about “wokeness”. The idea that it’s just a conservative bogeyman has become, ironically, very much a bogeyman itself. And it makes everyone saying this look like the stereotypical hipster who only superficially interacts with people outside of their bubble but foolishly thinks otherwise.
When minorities are casually erased as was done above, it only worsens the perceptions that are expressed in this article:
Deleted.
That’s not what I said. I was saying those who make policy and have the power to actually do harm are not the norm. Bigots are sadly all too common, but few of them actually have a hand in making policy and therefore aren’t worth wasting time on.
And you can’t see any connection between the two?
Are you talking about America? Like, the American political system? Because from where this foreigner sits, it’s at minimum 50% bigots there. That’s not “a few” even per capita, never mind in size of influence.
Jesus shitting christ…Let me try again…
Of the bigots that exist, few of them are in a position of power. Of the people in power, yeah, tons of bigots. Most of the people you argue with on social media are not in a position of power. Save your rage for those who are. Or, don’t, and continue lashing out and see how far that gets you in winning allies and solving problems. You do you.
This is a clever way to insult those who disagree with you, but it doesn’t advance an argument.
And how did they get in a position that allows them to make policy and do harm? They were put there by all the people who heard their bigotry, and thought, “Sounds good to me!”
No shit. But what does lashing out at them on social media accomplish?
They’re not heads of households, employers, teachers, policemen? You don’t have to be President to have power.
Worked just fine for me in the past, thanks… playing nice never won me my freedom from racist oppression, doing something angry did.
But you weren’t arguing that it was ineffective, you were arguing that most of the people who are on the receiving end aren’t actually that bad.
Which point do you want to defend? That we should be nicer to people who hate us, or that there aren’t really that many people who hate us in the first place?
Is this some sort of “Be quiet and leave them alone, and they will go away” gambit?
As has been said before, it is possible to take more then one path in fighting them, and letting it be known publicly and loudly that there are those that oppose them for very good reasons seems like a decent method to me.
Didn’t say be nice. Believe it or not, one can solve problems while maintaining a sense of emotional maturity. Don’t take the troll bait.
What the fuck else was “continue lashing out and see how far it get you” supposed to mean?
Knowing when and how to use anger is emotional maturity. Only the emotionally stunted don’t get angry at things that should make them angry.
I get angry at actual evil actions. I recognize trolling when I see it, believe me, and it doesn’t make me angry, the way actual bigotry does. More like some combo of pitying and amused - pitused, IYW.
One can care deeply, state their case, and be direct without acting like a five-year-old throwing a tantrum. That’s what I’m saying. Discourse has gone to shit on social media because people’s communication skills are like using the box of a few oversized primary color crayons when there are the 64-color boxes available. There are so many other ways of communicating and various other tactics that are more effective.
Be angry. Be passionate. But most of all, be effective.
You have said this, a lot, but you have yet to show it.