Yes, if there’s one thing we’ve learned from Trump’s almost excessively reasonable 2016 campaign it’s that in the modern media environment people who grant points to their opponents win the public over whereas those who fall back on relentless demonisation of their opponents are doomed to fail.
No, it hasn’t. He’s still super rich. He’s still going to be making movies. He’s still going to have super sketch relations towards women. Hell, the allegations against Louis CK were true and he’s eking back into the comedy world already.
Anyway, I can’t read the article because it’s behind a paywall, so I have no idea what the nuanced arguments are ; but I think the reason “woke” culture and discourse is so intransigent and aggressive is that it’s the voice of people who aren’t used to and have never been used to wielding any sort of real power and much more importantly any personal power.
Throughout my life (and many decades prior) effecting social change, as a lowly peon, would only involve said lowly peon to a limited extent that eventually stopped being very relevant. Which was disheartening.
You would write petitions to politicians who’d then maybe perhaps do a thing (but mostly didn’t). You would hold sit-ins and assemblies and demos, and then either nothing happened or a designated spokesperson who became a Very Important Person would talk to the cameras, be invited to speak to Congress, be interviewed on TV and whatnot and at this point their relevance and the weight their words carried was a still a little bit reliant on your presence at the big demo ; but really from the individual’s standpoint whether or not they were at the march didn’t matter anymore because the issue was now in the hands of the Very Important Person who’d be talking to Serious Rich People about it. Or your cause was picked up by a Hollywood person, which is another sort of Very Important Person that is utterly removed from you, the grassroots activist.
And obviously you had no control whatsoever on the specifics of the message, and the personal foibles of your Very Important Person were exploitable to nix the entire movement, making you the committed peon even more irrelevant.
As well the establishment has become very, very adept at handling and defanging traditional protests and keeping control of the discourse, delegitimizing, distracting, whatabouting, discrediting. Remember Occupy Wall Street ? Yeah.
Striking, while a lot more engaging (and engaged) from the lowly peon’s POV is ultimately also dependant on Very Important People doing the actual negotiating, and is ultimately ill-suited to solving society-wide issues. Although it’d be interesting to see the result of, say, a Black People General Strike. Or a Women’s Strike. It won’t ever happen and realistically can’t since those categories are trans-sectional and trans-classes so no real organization is possible and goals are at odds… but it’s fun to imagine nonetheless.
But
But thanks to social media and its growing importance even to Serious Rich People, you don’t need a Very Important Person to talk for you any more, you can even publicly take the Very Important Persons to task directly and in public, where they can’t just dismiss you or chuck your letter in the circular folder. Direct democracy, bitches.
And what’s better : it works. And it works fast. Police violence against black people in America has been going on for before I was even born, rappers kept singing about it, the entire city of LA blew up over it that one time, yet nobody gave a real shit because… because who are they gonna vote for, the Republican ? But #BlackLivesMatter forced TV cameras to look at it, sustained the narrative longer than the episodic conversation prompted by this or that case making the news And Now The Weather ; and for politicians, mayors and PD chiefs to address it. And not just say they will, but actually do something because the Internet neither forgets nor forgive and it will be their ass next. #MeToo has done more for the visibility of sexual abuse and harassment and the global grokking that the phenomenon a) exists and b) is fucking ubiquitous than 30 years of Very Important second wave feminists writing books about it and being interviewed about it on TV, or mandatory awareness seminars.
And the coolest thing is, the culture wars and hashtags and slogans of one movement in one context in one country often drive the same changes everywhere else ! #MeToo’s gone global, like some sort of pink Internationale :). Hong Kong’s proto-revolution is causing ripples in the US and the stunt of one (1) activist on one Blizzard stream has resulted in a general questioning of the morality of late capitalist corporations, increased public awareness and scrutiny over the abuses of Winnie the Pooh and those who choose to shake hands with him for a buck, and an official, bilateral fucking reprimand from the United States fucking Congress. Almost overnight.
Now that’s some power.
The threat of ostracism is a very real cudgel that can affect even Serious Rich People and Serious People With Badges now. Which is fucking great.
And because it also *feels *fucking great, like any wielding of power, it’ll necessarily come with a portion of abuse of and corruption ; all the more so that it’s being wielded by people and classes that have never been used to wielding any sort of power whatsoever. Moderation shouldn’t be expected, not so soon anyhow.
But it *is *a lot more motivating and drives more everyday, direct activism than signing petitions or pledging money to this or that organization or, yes, even voting (which many people of my generation and the next have grown past disillusioned with). People are realizing that their lives and communities don’t have to rest within the hands of Very Important Persons existing in a basically alien space any more. Historically this sort of conscious awakening has traditionally come along with guns or guillotines. In that light, hashtags and cancellings are something of a lesser evil, wouldn’t y’all think ? Like, the “victims” talk about witchhunts and screaming mobs and pitchforks and even lynchings (FFS Donald :smack:) but errr you folks do realize this was what those sorts of affairs did use to involve, yes ? That when popular outrage reached a fever pitch people did get gutted with pitchforks & hanged from streetlights ? Not metaphorically or virtually ?
Just checking.
We should still totally eat the rich at some point though.
It’s exactly as disparaging as I intended.
By her own accounts, she’s a big girl who apparently has no time for MeToo!, and considerered casual harassment just par for the course of doing writing business in New York. So she can *surely *put up with some condescending speech. She can, as she puts it, just “laugh it out of the room”
Or is she *actually *a special snowflake who needs a safe space? Funny, that…
So sexist language is acceptable as long as you think the person on the receiving end can take it? OK, I shall file that little nugget away for future reference, I assume the same holds for homophobic and racist language as well?
Ah. Figured out a way to read the article after all and… I don’t think I’d ever encountered “old woman yelling at clouds” before ? So that’s new. Or, well…this is just yet another retelling of the quarrel of the ancients and moderns, isn’t it ? Oh these, these… young people with their memes and their gendered pronouns, such nonsense ! Why, in MY day…
And she wonders why she’s getting dismissed ?
Such gobbledigook language, too…
the fuck does any of this *mean *?
Plus as far as the verbal atrophy she’s complaining about goes, maybe she should download a podcast or fire up a YouTube video created by those shitty millenials at some point ? Twitter and facebook are not where any real discourse or education happens, at best they’re mobilization tools. It’s where we go to have fun and #represent (which, demonstrably, emboldens women to raise their middle fingers because community and cross-sectionality really are, y’know, cool beans and efficient ?). But millenials and zoomers alike can and do write longform and can speak for hours on a given subject complete with nuance and quite a lot more self-awareness than filters through those words of yours, read a ton of books and constantly seek more information, more recommendations, more experiences and points of views and strategies - it’s pretty much what “staying woke” entails.
If it’s hard to keep up it’s because it keeps moving forward and evolving rapidly, as do the “wokescenti” (no but seriously, what the fuck is that ?).
If that’s what you think my point was, I suggest you reread what I wrote.
I don’t actually think she *could *take it. I used outdated language to satirise the outdated nature of her “just laugh and put up with it” stance on harassment.
She is an “old woman” at 49? 
I’m pretty sure Elizabeth Warren has kids older than that.
That link is broken, but last I heard he was finding people who would make his movies in Europe but not in the US. As if he’s basically the equivalent of Roman Polanski or something. :mad:
The goalposts have been moved because I said accusations of sexual assault should be taken seriously and investigated, but not automatically believed. Manson insisted that this is already what the standard is, but clearly most everyone in Hollywood has decided to believe, not just investigate—never mind that there was a contemporaneous investigation by Yale experts on child sexual abuse that concluded Dylan was making up the story, perhaps after having been coached by Mia Farrow. Not to mention that Woody Allen passed a polygraph, and his son Moses—who was in the house at the time and has become a psychotherapist—is positive the story is bogus. All of that has been swept away because #BelieveWomen.
It was only many years later, after the #MeToo movement really got rolling, that Woody was essentially blacklisted in Hollywood—despite there being no new evidence against him and no accusations from anyone else. Which all proves my point.
Are you under the impression that Trump is winning the debate in the eyes of the public? Take a look at some polls sometime, not to mention the results of last year‘s election.
Yeah, that was some pretzel logic there in rationalizing the double standard. (As I am about to post, I see he is doing some furious backpedaling.)
To millennials, that’s one foot in the grave.
So it looks like accusations of hypocrisy are the go-to sidetrack of the day? Maybe *this *one will stick…
She certainly writes like one.
Insisted? I agreed with you. And most people do think that is the standard. Note “most”. Not “all” And I don’t really give a crap about what Hollywood does. I’m more concerned with law enforcement.
If you want to believe that false accusations ruin a person’s life, then go right ahead. I have a Supreme Court Justice and a President of the United States that say you are wrong.
So because they don’t always, they never do? (And why are you so sure those allegations against Trump and Kavanagh are “false”? We should be talking about “unproven” rather than “false” allegations here.)
Polygraphs are junk science and not even admissible in court.
Oh well that should have settled it then. #BelieveMoses. He’s an important man, so… Is that what you’re saying ?
ok. Unproven then.
I wouldn’t say “never” But if all you got is a rich Hollywood type guy who is still rich and still making movies, then I say “meh”
You would be on more solid ground there if you added the qualifier “in most state courts”. Per Wiki:
And of course, the FBI, CIA, and NSA use them extensively.
No, just that it is very far from being an accusation that has been proved true, yet in the #MeToo era, Hollywood has decided it has to be true since a woman said it was. Woody Allen should not have to prove his innocence (although he has in fact come pretty close). That’s what a “presumption of innocence” means.
Well I’ve re-read it but it still sounds to me like you think it is ok to use sexist terms in those circumstances. I mean, you did use those words and even to my pretty broad definition it sounds horribly sexist so lets assume it is a misinterpretation on my part and there is an intent behind them that I’ve missed.
Ok, so such language is OK when used satirically then? I don’t think that actually helps you. If someone is on the other side of you for a future debate then I hope you will cut them the same slack for problematic language used for satirical purposes, I guess we’ll see eh?
And actually, now I come to read your last paragraph again you seem to be suggesting that she doesn’t know her own mind on this, you certainly seem to be saying that she doesn’t know what she can “take”. Mansplaining are we? (assuming you are male)
Depends.
On whether the target of the satire has made it OK to satirise them, by their own words.
I’m not *debating *the lady in question. I’m just mocking her.
She’s not the one I think thinks she’s a snowflake. That would be her ahem White, as it were, Knights.
That’s … not what mansplaining is. :smack:
Says the guy who argues for a, shall we say, expansive definition of sealioning. :dubious:
Nah
What part of that did you have trouble with?, it seems clear to me. Wokescenti is a portmanteau of woke and cognoscenti.
OK