The left is at it again, changing the name of its current push. Teh Grauniad, being the idiot children they are ran with it first, but it’s now everywhere.
“The right invented woke to mock us! It was never a thing of the left.”
I’m old enough to remember when they did that at SJW “It was not a thing we called ourselves. It’s a mockery the right created for us.”
You could hear pins drop when we pointed them at games created by their co-religionists about how to be an SJW. In the same way, I’m sure those of an enterprising spirit should be able to capture — now — a ton of their articles and tweets encouraging each other to be “woke.”
I look forward to their ditching “anti-racist” the same way in about five years.
I don’t remember when they ditched “Reality based community.” From my perspective, they just shut up about it when Obama was elected. But it wouldn’t surprise me to find that they also claimed we invented it to mock them.
What they should ask themselves is why they are so mockable. And why each name they attach to themselves becomes ridiculous.
They should ask themselves why, like bad Chinese restaurants, they change their name whenever the effects of what they peddle become known.
Because Marxism is poisonous and it kills. Either fast — in full communist regimes — or slowly by lost hope, despair and slerosis, as in Socialist Europe. It’s a poisonous philosophy in which there is no hope.
It also has bloody nothing to do with reality. For one, its paradise hinges on “everyone should just” — there is not a single instance in the history of mankind in which EVERYONE in the world (or a country, or a village, or a large family) “just” did the same thing. Even perfectly sensible, logical things that don’t go against basic human nature (which Marxism does) and don’t kill your will to live. Heck, in my friend group “Everyone should just stop going off on obsessive research/work, eat balanced meals and sleep 8 hours a day” is the unobtanium.
Marxism ignores the whole…. back brain. Part of Jordan Peterson’s genius — for me at least — was recognizing it exists and we need to negotiate with it. And often it wins.
For Marxists, that — the accumulated instincts that evolution gave us — should “just” stop existing.
The only way Marxism can make sense is if they ret-on history to fit their theories (Which they’ve been doing in academia, officially, for 100 plus years.)
But even so enough sticks out, that if you look at it up close and personal you go “that makes no sense.” To an extent my dive into history started with realizing their explanation for WWI made no sense what-so-heck-ever. (One clue: look not at nationalism, but internationalism, in the form of world-spanning empires. That’s NOT soil-and-blood or “love your land” nationalism. It is by definition internationalism. Particularly when you realize that the “kings” were a multinational (and interrelated) elite, owing nothing to their supposed country.)
Anyway, so, it’s kind of hilarious to see the left don mantles like “Reality based” and “woke” and anti-racist. Not to mention “SJW” which consisted of people afraid to leave their own rooms, and capable of melting into hysterics at being called the wrong pronoun thinking of themselves as “warriors” on behalf of people who didn’t ask for it, and for measures that help no human ever.
In fact, by the way, their entire pronoun crusade is roll on the floor funny, because socialism demands and functions only in absolute uniformity. So their hope of being called some bizarre made up pronoun is sort of like jumping up and down and saying “Socialist Sempai, send me to the camps first.”
Anyway, if you have to keep changing your name, maybe what’s wrong is what’s underneath.
I do appreciate that we’re mean and shouldn’t laugh and point. Well, no. We should. Because the whole thing is so toxic, that humor is the only thing preventing us from getting really, really, really angry.
But they don’t get that. The “reality based” and “woke” ones have so parted with reality that they think if they just change words they’ll create paradise.
May the Lord have mercy on their souls and bring about a true wakening to reality in them.
Before the butcher’s bill comes due.
186 thoughts on “words Of Power”
Are the names ridiculous because they pick ridiculous names, or do they make them ridiculous because they behave in ridiculous ways?
Yankee Doodle was made to be an insult, and look where it is now.
It’s definitely #2. It doesn’t matter what they call themselves, the terms all become objects of ridicule due to the whole underpants-on-the-head rationales behind them.
That’s why it bothers them so. It’s not underpants on head to them, They’re convinced they’re the smart people, the good people. The fact that you don’t recognize that makes you the stupid people, the bad people. Who are you to mock them? How very dare you! Peasant.
Worse, you Bad People are relatively prosperous and happy, when Our Doctine says we should be prosperous and happy! This is intolerable!
I agree they are upset that we are happy and prosperous since making us unhappy and poor is what they’re after. I also agree they are unhappy, mentally ill in many cases because people who wish ill on other people are missing something. Alas, they are usually very prosperous, family money usually. Leftism is a luxury good. I like to tell my lefty sister that I’m too poor to be a lefty.
I think the first mention of Social Justice Warrior was in a UN (quit throwing shoes at me) report, and actually spoke to some real human rights issues IIRC. After that the SJW took over the moniker and morphed it into ridiculousness. Whatever they call themselves will be mocked and ridiculed because of the way they go about things.
I liked the D&D-themed “take back the term” buttons. “Social Justice Thief” was especially choice.
In that vein, I want to take back the OK hand sign. No, you mooks, the OK sign doesn’t mean ‘white power’! For a century, it meant ‘everything’s copacetic’, and it still does. The fact that some Chan troll put out a meme and you mooks took it seriously doesn’t change that.
It akso means FU which is why the channers (who are less parochial than those they troll) prank is so hilarious.
No it doesn’t. The channers make sh*t up
Eh, my sense of humor is peculiar.
But yes. Try making the OK sign in Brasil and see where it gets you.
Not just a meme. They deliberately told the MSM they were going to troll the MSM into thinking that the ok symbol meant White Power, and the MSM response to that was to swallow the doesn’t-even-qualify-as-bait and ask for another.
It should not be possible to be that stupid.
Montreal Gazette used the term in print in 1991…
Current leftism is a lunatic cargo cult–boys are girls, sex is an identity you choose, there are no races, math is racist, etc.–Cults always have dumb names for their objects of worship…
To quote from Lewis Carroll
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
The left have always thought that Newspeak was the perfect example of language usage even before they bought into Chomsky’s nonsense.
Americans, and certain strains of Westerners in general, seem to delight in taking insults and making them titles. “Quaker.” “Impressionist.” “Methodist.” “Deplorable.”
…or, I could read the thread instead of skimming and see someone already mentioned that. *facepalm*
If you read the thread before commenting, there’s just more stuff to read before you can comment and….so on.
Well, there’s the “someone posted the same thing right as I was typing my own reply” thing that happens from time to time.
When the idea a word names has some inherent issue, that issue will be transferred to the word no matter how many times you rename the idea. This is true no matter how much compassion the word is meant to show. Take the words idiotic, retarded, and special. The latter two were coined because it is cruel t mock those who through no fault of their own have a cognitive impairment. But they rapidly came to have the same cruel connotations as idiot, because a person with profound cognitive impairment is inherently less capable of performing basic actions, and human nature leads people to mock others by comparing them to the unfotunates who are incapable of performing basic actions. The retarded are not actually the target of this cruelty, the non-retarded person who is being called retarded for some particualr foolishness is the target. Since people will seek to mock their peer group and since comparing someone to a person who has a condition that slows or retards development is an obvious mockery, no matter what word you assign to the retarded it will end up used as an insult. This is not as far afield as it may sound, because the words woke, or SJW, or prog, or anti-racist or whatever those people choose to call themselves this week, are used as insults for precisely the same reason as the crueler word retarded. The difference is that one can insult people as wokies without the unjustifiable cruelty toward people suffering from a genetic impairment, because the impairment the wokies suffer from is chosen, not congenital.
“Idiot” is just a word; add a dash of cruel, unfounded hope and you get “retard” (you really think Billy will develop… later? That boy ain’t right!)
Cruelty is baked in our fallen pie. Those perceived as less-than will be mocked. Scolds will find something to scold about. Tall, rickety towers of euphemism will grow.
I’m with Robin Goodfellow — “what fools these mortals be!”
Because they are the euphemism treadmill and can’t accept that the terms will not change the evaluation of the thing.
The goal is to change the para-reality with word games (the evil Wittgenstein* sort) enough to draft the cleverboots useful idiots into spreading it to normal people and ensnaring them. The psychos behind stealing and corrupting our language are *very* good at this.
Relentlesly mock them (It’s pure sand in Satan’s shorts) but do not underestimate their tactics.
Ooo, thank you for that bit on WWI, that makes the whole mess make so much more sense. (As much sense as WWI could make, at least.)
I think of Mark Twain’s insistence on getting the right word – instead of “almost the right word” – and wish the guy were here today to point and mock everything progressives grip in their grasping clutches.
Guess we’ll have to do it for him!
World War I, from what I’ve been able to figure out, was several dozen different issues that avoided being resolved because of the Concert of Europe after Napoleon. England didn’t have a lot of the issues, because it resolved most of them around the time of the War of the Roses and the Magna Carta. France always had issues-too big to fail, too small to ignore them in the nose of general competence-and it never figured out how to moderate the swing from anarchic disaster and oligarchical disaster. Germany was the youngest child in a world where all of the best bits of everything that mattered was claimed-and couldn’t find any way to have anything to make them more than just the middle of Europe. And, Germany won too well in the wars against France-they succeeded so well that they thought any future war was going to be about as easy. The Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires were disasters waiting to happen. The Russian Empire was a disaster happening, just nobody could really see it if they weren’t “on the ground.”
So, all of continental Europe was covered in an inch-thick layer of sawdust and gunpowder…and “one damned fool thing in the Balkans” lit the continent on fire. It gave a chance for international socialists to take over one country, motivate national socialists to take over two other countries, and set the state for a war thirty years lager.
*wags paw* I’d argue with you about the Austro-Hungarian Empire, but it would take a lot of footnotes and a long detailed discussion. Suffice it to say that the Habsburg Empire wasn’t as sick as later Berlin-centric writers made it seem. Yes, they had the single most incompetent overall commander I’ve ever run across, but they could have held a constitutional monarchy and Commonwealth together. [That guy . . . Good Lord, I could have done a better job. Sheesh!]
I’d probably have to argue with your arguing. The Magyar Hungarians really wanted out, they played the spoiler in Hapsburg politics, and they wrecked the Empire’s military readiness and internal cohesion well before the war started. At least, that’s the thesis of Wawro’s “A Mad Catastrophe”, and he’s pretty persuasive.
I’d have to say the Hungarians were the problem since a fair bit of the disaffection in the empire was among the non Magyars who fell under the Hungarian half of the dual monarchy. Had the Magyar politicians not been such complete pillocks the empire might have done better.
I’d add the fact that the US was entirely opposed to the empire, Wilson being an anti Catholic bigot and all. It’s too bad since the only senior political figure who genuinely wanted a fair peace was Kaiser Karl, or Blessed Charles as we should call him now.
Wilson was opposed to a lot of things that would have helped make a lasting peace. Racial integration in the U.S., for example.
I’d argue that the Austro-Hungarian empire was a mess, had messy issues in various degrees, and that the First World War was something that most certainly didn’t help…
Mark Twain would be nice, but for my money, Ambrose Bierce would be even more fiery!
The First World War is EXTREMELY unusual. Everybody had a different reason for going to war. The Austro-Hungarian Empire wanted to avenge the Crown Prince (and expand their influence in the Balkans). The Russians wanted to expand THEIR influence in the Balkans. The Germans needed to shore up their relations with the Austro-Hungarian Empire (their only ally, which they had stiffed in the last crisis a few years earlier). The French wanted revenge for the Franco-Prussian War. The British wanted to take the Germans down a notch in the Great Power standings – especially their naval strength. And suffusing everything was a notion that a war would be a grandly romantic enterprise…and short. Home by Christmas – of 1914.
Normally, that many reasons for a war is a recipe for shattered alliances and separate peaces being made. Think the first three coalitions against France in the Napoleonic era.
But there was another factor, which KEPT the countries fighting. Massive political instability, with the Communists (and proto-Communists) at the root of it. The Austro-Hungarian Empire was the last honest-to-goodness dynastic state left in Europe – and was breaking up over nationalism. Russia was on the path to SOME sort of major political reform, the only question was whether it would be a peaceful transition to a constitutional monarchy or outright revolution. Germany had political pressures, demands for a more representative system of governance. The UK had undergone a soft revolution in 1908 that put the House of Commons in undisputed control. And France only kept the Third Republic because they could not decide what a Fourth Republic would look like. Hell, an anarchist had killed President McKinley in 1901!
From a grand strategic perspective, the Allies should have sued for peace in 1915, after the failure of the Dardanelles offensive. Certainly by the spring of 1916, after the first day on the Somme and at Verdun. Cut their losses. The Germans would have talked…they were equally eager to cut THEIR losses. But whoever did so would have to fight the Communists at home.
In retrospect, that would have been much the better option.
It would have been interesting to see all the veterans coming home, especially in the UK and France, listening to the Communists and deciding that they had to be “dealt with”…and they were never missed…
Dispose of the Communists fast, and the Second World War is averted. Hitler never parlays fear of them into a path to power, Russia and the West are strong enough to deter Japan’s military ambitions (they turn toward internal improvements and modernization instead).
It also depends upon which countries deal with their internal issues and successfully.
Post-Great War Japan was also extremely afraid of Bolshevik subversion. Squash that in 1916 and maybe Japan is less fascist-militaristic. They’d probably still have gone to war in China because of their “eat or be eaten” concept, but it might have petered out by 1940 when the public was already tired of it if there wasn’t a super-paranoid military caste running everything.
Also, the German Empire at the time was hardly the unitary state that we tend to imagine; it was instead still a federation of states. The Kaiser’s government had to spend a lot of time keeping Bavaria, Saxony, Hesse, etc. happy.
I remember it wasn’t that long ago that antifa went from something that they were proud of to something that the right wing invented to make them look bad. (That may have gone both ways a couple of times.)
That just made me tilt my head and go “huh?”
or them basically saying antifa is made up and doesn’t actually exist, and then cnn artfully editing the footage of them so you can’t see the flags and banners….
But, is ANTIFA really it’s own movement, or is it just what various power-brokers use when they need something done, like how the gangs and such were the enforcers in big cities for years (and still are in places like Chicago)?
Naah, its its own nutjob movement, hence why they’ve continued to act up since Der Bidenfuhrer took power.
(Yes, they are, but since they’ve served their purpose most of the MSM stopped reporting on it)
…or trying to claim everyone is Antifa. Like American soldiers storming the beaches of Normandy in 1944.
It’s like a criminal gang claiming it’s Anti-Othergang and then trying to claim the police, Neighborhood Watch, etc are also Anti-Othergang.
All the good guys of history and fiction are literally antifa.
Also, antifa doesn’t exist and is a right-wing slur.
Believe them both, Winston.
Possibly unrelated (have yet to read the post, see…)
Who asked for list of some texts (see: https://accordingtohoyt.com/2021/10/25/ming-the-merciful/#comment-809743 )
Modern Chemistry by Dull-Brookes-Metcalfe c. 1954
Elements of Radio by Marcus and Marcus c. 1959
Oddly even more outdated now, but…
Basic Televsion by Bernard Grob c. 1964
The Gasoline Automobile (Extension Division of the University of Wisconsin) c. 1919 [This is on Project Gutenberg, I think]
Not textbooks as such, but…
Hypnotism by G. H. Estabrooks c 1957 (1959 reprint)
The Web of Space-Time by Mitch Struble c. 1973
The Special and the General Theory
A Clear Explanation That Anyone Can Understand by Albert Einstein c. 1961
The last is perhaps surprisingly approachable, despite the claim of it being so.
Going to see if I can grab some of these as well.
I strongly suggest any writer (-or any survivor wanting to rebuild a 20th century civilization from the 21st century’s ashes.) should have as full a set as they can obtain of early 1900s Audels Manuals on their self.
and reloading manuals, and bullet casting dies….
Yep, and realize any gun can be converted into a matchlock by drilling a wee hole in the breech,
I have a couple of copies of “Handbook of Applied Mathematics,” by Grazda, Jansson, and Minrath. 4th edition (though I just ordered the 1983 edition, for fun).
Starts with basic math, goes through geometry, trig, and calculus, and then shifts over to a wide range of practical uses, like excavation, brickwork, carpentry, plumbing, heating, machine shop work, electronics, and even business math and accounting.
You could pretty much rebuild an early-20th century civilization from this book alone.
FWIW, I used to loan out HYPNOTISM, but the last I did I looked at it would cost to replace it. NOPE.
And I fear I need to re-read it again. I have this suspicion that at least one person here (who isn’t me..) has been suckered in some way or other and the text might provide ME with enlightenment – though most likely I cannot do a damn thing about the parasitic infection. [I know someone has ‘blocked’ me elsewhere. It seems they NEED the resistance for their bug to my being the DDT to it. This doesn’t bother me. It’s really pretty damn cool to be so dangerous to hallucinations!]
It seems they NEED the resistance for their bug to my being the DDT to it.
I cannot parse this. Once more for nosotros estupidos please.
Don’t you just love how the lefties use terms to describe themselves that are actually antonyms to their real agenda, like antifa and anti-racist?
I’m looking forward to what Alec Baldwin really means when he says he didn’t point the gun or pull the trigger. Why didn’t he say that in the first place?
Right now, he’s apparently going with a variation of “b*tch set me up” defense, blaming the head armorer he hired.
how dare she install guided missile bullets into the fake SAA
The only oopses viable still leave him personally at fault. (hang fire or really bad trigger job) Still required him to point a gun where he had no business pointing one.
I read that the revolver used was a replica, but whether it used a transfer bar action (which would counteract a bad trigger–if you don’t pull the trigger, there’s no connection) or if it was the original style. Apparently the manufacturer does both variants.
OTOH, the firearm was called out as “cold”, in that it shouldn’t have any rounds, either blank or live, in it. As it was a rehearsal, there wouldn’t have been a need for dummy rounds.
Aesop (raconteurreport) notes that H’wood uses the “point gun at camera and shoot” a lot, but in such situations, the camera is run remotely, *not* with people behind the camera.
On the gripping hand, Baldwin the producer let things go out of control. A firearm that was reported to go off twice the day before should not have been in the prop room, and it appeared that the armorer was completely clueless. I don’t think that abject stupidity and ignorance will be a successful defense for any trial, either criminal or civil. (AFAIK, Baldwin should be OK for criminal, but as producer, he will be out a lot of money…)
Yeah, for every “Not the Actor’s fault” it devolves to the Producer really and well, he’s the one there too. “She didn’t know what she was doing!” and you knew this when? and yet you didn’t get someone who did to backstop things.
Also because of WuFlu nuttyness, she was not allowed contact with him, or the guy who supposedly claimed “Cold Gun”, and some of the methods were just waiting for problems. Also boils down to his fault as producer for allowing that situation to fester.
It really doesn’t matter whether he pulled the trigger or not. Let’s assume he’s telling the truth (I know, I know) and he did not pull the trigger. It’s a single-action Colt revolver. In order for it to fire with a malfunctioning trigger, he had to have the pistol pointed at the victim and then pull the hammer back with his thumb and let it go.
Now, the reason I think he’s lying is that cocking a Colt SAA is difficult to do single-handed without ending up with the pistol pointed at the sky. But it’s really immaterial–he said he was going to shoot them, he performed at least the first of two mechanical functions required to do so, and he shot them.
The bit I saw was he was practicing fan firing the single action revolver. For those unfamiliar with single action revolvers my understanding is that this was a trick/strategy used by gunfighters to quickly fire several shots. Hold the trigger and then fan the hammer back. As the trigger is already depressed the hammer immediately fires the current bullet. Next pull advances the cylinder and again fires the new bullet. Basically the idiot violated every one of the four laws of gun handling to have this result. As he is both the actual shooter AND ultimately responsible as producer there are two different ways to charge him with negligent murder (or whatever Arizona’s equivalent is). Even should he somehow be let off by the prosecutor he is legally liable for causing death and harm. I think because there is clear negligence you could pretty much pauperize him. In a fair society he’d spend the rest of his miserable life in jail and his earthly possessions would be transferred to the heirs of the Cinematographer and the Director.
I think I’ve got an example of fan firing properly queued up in this link, from the SloMo Guys.
Dang that is seriously impressive…
Yeah, only thing I’ve seen that impressed me more was Jerry Micheluk doing it with a .500 magnum.
If the revolver was cocked when in the holster, it’s possible a jar could cause hammerfall. One would suppose an actor, even one like Baldwin would set the “something’s wrong” flag at that point.
(I have a 9mm(!) muzzle loading rifle that will drop the hammer at half-cock with mild trigger pressure. No, I’ve never let it near powder. I really wouldn’t trust it with that lock in most any state. Not sure it’s worth fixing…)
Ha. Expecting someone who is ignoring every clear safety protocol for firearms handling as well as every step spelled out in the #1 “safety memo” for Hollywood to notice “something’s wrong” is…
…expecting someone who wants to blame the world when he held the gun to take responsibility for a death, I guess.
Yeah, it was expecting too much. SMH
If they told people what they were really up to, they’d be laughed out of the room. Or shot. (But how many of them even know what they’ve really been doing? Only a very few, I suspect. I look forward to seeing them stood up against the wall.)
Yes, “woke” is a term used to denigrate the left by noted conservatives like… *checks notes* James Carville.
I think they’re going to have a slightly harder time ditching this one. SJW was more of a slang thing. I don’t remember anyone prominent on the left using it. But prominent lefties *have* been using the term “woke” of late, even if only to slam the more extreme members of their own side of the aisle for completely losing touch with the American people.
Earliest usage of Social Justice Warrior I was able to find was favorable and in an UN doccument. I have since lost the bookmark (I kill computers).
Well, here’s one… 1991:
If memory serves (and it does a damn poor job of it–I think it’s striking for higher wages), I first ran into SJW in the coverage* of Gamergate. The elites were referreing to themselves as social justice warriors, and the acronym was a logical extension.
(*) Pretty much from the blogger who shall remain nameless. Even when he’s right, he can be insufferable, and when he’s wrong, he’s worse. Not sure he recognizes the parallels between himself and the SJWs he mocks…
So, calling them woke bothers them and is effective against them. Good to know.
Speaking of mockery, one of the better equity analysts is talking about the necro-omicron. Once it becomes a joke, it’s over.
Can we get cookie cutters in COVID outline shape?
Make it so
See also: https://accordingtohoyt.com/2021/12/02/words-of-power/#comment-815668
Alright, I can’t keep the TLA’s & TLI’s straight. What anyone expect from ox? }:o)
What bothers them is that it’s a term of mockery. They picked the term because they wanted to show how enlightened they were. The right turned it into a term of contempt. And the dirty little truth is that’s what would have happened no matter what term they picked, because that’s how it always works out. They pick a term to define themselves. We think they’re idiots, and use it to mock. They run away from it. Compare and contrast that with the God Emperor Trump float. It was meant to mock President Trump. Trump supporters said, “Awesome!”. Some Dutch comedians made a clever video poking fun at Trump. Trump supporters said, “Awesome!”. The left mocks the way Trump speaks.
It’s a pretty consistant pattern. The left adopts something, the right mocks it, and the left pretends it never had anything to do with the thing being mocked. The right adopts something, the left mocks it, and the right seizes the mockery.
So then calling yourself “queer” is right-wing?
I have a Fightin’ Whities t-shirt. Love it. Invented by a Native American group at University of Northern Colorado as a way to show White people why stereotypes like “Fighting Sioux” are so hurtful. Except White people saw it and said, “Awesome. I want one. How much?” Give the kids credit – they seized the opportunity and sold enough merchandise to fund a scholarship for Native American students!
You’d have thought the ‘fighting Irish’ would have given them a clue
I’m pretty sure I’ve heard people claim that should be removed as a school symbol due to racism.
They tried to whip up a mob in the Celtic Heritage type groups in the late 90s.
That’s when the “Yeah, Notre Dame is called the fighting Irish. Do you know why we don’t complain? Because we’re not a bunch of [rude words][insult to masculinity]!!!
There’s a whole lot of people in Ireland who think so. As usual, they’re ignorant of the actual facts Fighting Irish being the Civil war Irish Brigade whose chaplain Father Corby taught at Notre Dame after the war and brought one of the green regimental colors with him.
His statue is a Gettysburg showing him pressing the brigade, they were barely a battalion in numbers, as they went off to cover Sickle’s stupidity in the wheat field. They were down to only about 300 men when it was all done.
Faugh a Ballaugh and Rhiamh nar Dhruid O Spairn Iann
I do remember that – it was covered early, on Instapundit, IIRC. I thought it was absolutely hilarious, and glad that the school made a bomb on selling Fighting Whities merchandise.
I first heard “woke” from the right (more specifically, early alt-right, before that imploded), to refer to conservatives who had twigged to the malice coming from the left.
I was then confused when a couple years later, I encountered it used to refer to the leftarded.
Well, it is a handy shortcut for “recto-cranial inversion”…
They’re on the left because they’re highly motivated by social approval. There’s no thought behind it, just a self conceit as being smart
I keep wanting to go, OMC! and see if anyone notices.
My 8 year old says “OMC.”
For her, it’s “oh my cat.”
From Breaking Cat News
I never understood what is so bad about Obama Must Go!
“Once it becomes a joke, it’s over.”
Does noting that an anagram of omicron is moronic count as a joke?
(Not sure who came up with it first, but reading the headlines that popped up from my search was entertaining.)
I think it was around 2014 that an acquaintance who had moved from Seattle to San Fransisco was extolling some male celebrity with “who knew [name] would be such a woke bae” and I could only think “wait, was that an English sentence?”
I’m so old I even remember when “snowflake” was praise.
Long ago, I read a study of the evolution of language that pointed out that there’s a regular turnover of vocabulary for certain things, as the words that primarily mean those things are felt to be too offensive and replaced with euphemisms—when then become standard words for those things and are felt to be too offensive.
* The Latin word for “sheath,” vagina, was used anatomically, apparently as a polite metaphor; in modern languages the anatomical meaning is literal.
* The word “pregnant” apparently originally appeared in things like “a pregnant utterance” (which I used to think was a metaphor) and THEN was adopted to replace “gravid” (too medical) or “with child” (too blunt). By the mid-twentieth century (if not before) that was regarded as its literal meaning.
* When I was in junior high school, we were told that “idiot,” “imbecile,” and “moron” were technical terms for various IQ ranges—but they were already being used in jokes and insults. They were replaced by “mental retardation,” but then “retard” and “retarded” became insults. Then we acquired “mentally challenged. . . .”
* I remember when “gay” came into use as a polite word for “homosexual” (too medical) or “queer” (too insulting). After a decade or so kids were using “gay” to mean “stupid.” Then nonheterosexual people started insisting on their right to be called “queer” . . .
The thing is, that happens for things or actions or conditions that people regard negatively. Coming up with a new word does no good because if you use the word for something negative, the word starts to sound negative. Coming up with a new euphemism is easier than asking why all those leftish things are viewed negatively in the first place.
I’m noticing this with aspergers as well.
See, e.g., “sperglord”.
Asperger’s is out. At least in this case it seems that Asperger might have been an actual Nazi who is said to have referred children to Aktion T4. Don’t know if it’s true.
Bit of a palaver trying to explain to number one son that he went from Asperger’s to being on the spectrum. We don’t care what they call it, but it was a real moral panic here a few years ago and we didn’t want him caught up in it.
Sometimes I think psychology is the disease it purports to treat.
I had a text in high school that discussed the same thing. As I recall, it discussed terms of blacks, colored folks, Negroes, people of color, and I don’t know what else. These become offensive when bigots use them to insulting refer to people they consider inferior because of their skin color. Then the offended persons insist on a different term that doesn’t have the insulting connotations, Then the new term rapidly acquire the same ones. Occasionally it works the other way around, where an opprobrious epithet gets adopted as a badge of pride, Either way, changing the language doesn’t really change people’s attitudes.
All I can really say that is that those who don’t want “Woke” to become a term of ridicule should take care to not be ridiculous. A little self-awareness would probably help with that.
What I remember hearing was that the ’60s Civil Rights movement intentionally adopted the term “black” as a way of attempting to combat black on black racism by those with a lighter skin tone against those with a darker skin tone.
I find it endlessly hilarious how in the span of about 30 years we went from “black” being unacceptable, to “African-American” being the only acceptable term, all the way back to “Black” being the only term you’re allowed to use. And one day that word won’t be acceptable anymore and you’ll have to change to something else. . .
I think the name changes are just in group signaling.
I remember watching the Nelson Mandela inauguration when the PBS reporter was referring to South African African Americans. God is my witness, I couldn’t make that up if I tried.
…and the reporter at a previous Olympics, asking a Canadian trainer about “Canadian African Americans.”
At least Canada is in America.
Oh, not the first. Back in the late 1980s (a few years before Mandela), with my own eyes I watched Tom Brokaw of NBC Nightly News refer to a black native resident of Africa as an “African American” to avoid the horrors of calling him “black”.
That’s Americans being stupid.
EVERYWHERE else in the world, people with that range of skin tones and ethnic backgrounds are referred to as “black” in polite society. I don’t know if it’s the same interview as the one that TRX is referring to, but I remember hearing about a US reporter who was interviewing a Canadian athlete. The interviewer kept talking about how the athlete was a “Canadian African-American”, and the athlete kept correcting the interviewer by noting that he was “black”.
It’s also an incredibly condescending thing to do when referring to foreigners, which makes it doubly hilarious since those guilty of it are invariably the same ones who try to preach tolerance and cultural understanding to the rest of us.
“…those who don’t want “Woke” to become a term of ridicule should take care to not be ridiculous.”
Bravo! Well and truly said.
In The Best Christmas Pageant Ever, the unruly kids hear the Christmas story and one, when “she being great with child” was read, shouts, “Pregnant!”
Thus trigger an exchange where a stuck up girl thought that wasn’t nice, and the narrator observed — but she was.
Read ‘Granny Won’t Knit’ by Theodore Sturgeon. Among other sillinesses, bathrooms were called ‘Flower Shops’ because all the other terms were So, So, Offensive!
By the time of the story, one Just Did Not Say ‘Flower Shop’ in polite company. HANDS were Offensive! and had to be concealed by long, floppy sleeves. Womens’ clothing resembled a stack of cones, to conceal their shape.
Just look over the last century of silliness. One word becomes Offensive!, is replaced with another term, which soon becomes Offensive!, is replaced…
Colored People: Offensive!
African-American: What about Maori and others not from Africa?
People Of Color: Different from ‘Colored People’ how?
“Ladies and gentlemen, the Captain has switched on the ‘Put your head between your knees and kiss your ass goodbye’ sign. Thank you for flying with us, and have a nice day.”
It’s different from “colored” because they took away the “-ed”. You see? Totes different.
What I’m seeing now in the scholarly journals is “BIPOC,” which stands for Black, Indigenous, People of Color. It seems to be especially trendy in Canada, where “Indigenous” is a big deal (it’s shorthand for “Inuit, Native Canadian, and Métis”).
i thought Canadians usually used the equally ridiculous term ‘first nations’
You can never have just one because then people can learn the right one to use.
And, of course, in England, “indigenous” does not mean “white, Celtic person.”
Humans are not indigenous to the Western hemisphere. There are no ‘Native Americans’. 20,000 years ago, there were NO humans on these two continents. We all came here from somewhere else, at different times. One group after another claimed land, drove other groups off the land, got driven off in turn, over and over. Western Europeans are just the most recent group of invaders. Why are we the only evil ones?
‘Progressives’ believe everybody else is even stupider than they are. This explains a lot.
Words have power. The ultimate goal of the left is to remove the word “I.” In Ayn Rand’s Anthem, the two protagonists struggle to say “I love you” because “I” doesn’t exist. In the left’s world, there will be no mothers (chest-feeders), no fathers (toxic masculinity), no marriage, no children, no individual at all. There will be only the collective “we.”
We have to fight furiously to reject the attempted takeover of language. And part of that fight is to point, mock, and laugh.
Removing “I” from the language helps kill Judeo/Christian beliefs as well. _I am_ becomes uncomprehensible.
My preferred pronoun is “His Royal Highness”. I demand you start referring to me as such.
My little sister’s preferred pronouns are ‘Aaahhhhhhhhhh!’ and ‘Holy S&!%! You scared me!’
In college I once told a prof that my preferred form of address was “Her Imperial Galactic Majesty’ as a joke, and I laughed myself sick all the way back to the dorms after class when he actually used it. The looks on the other students’ faces were priceless.
Better hope Star Gordon doesn’t send a couple of large armored individuals around to discuss that title with you…
Nah, Empresses of Twenty Universes don’t worry what a minor Majesty of one minor galaxy in one universe calls herself. 🙂
Damn, I am old.
The two posts in the reader recommendations (More on WP.com) are one using SJW proudly (The Thinking SJW) and one slamming said SJWs (Intentional Faith: Why SJWs hate Christians so much)
[added because WPDE and I had to reload so a reply would actually post so now they are replaced with Falklands islands BBC criticizing and slamming woke gamers]
[added again! had to drop out of the reader because it will not post a reply right now]
Well, after all, they stole the perfectly good word “liberal” from the right back in the 1950’s, and then beat it into the ground so hard, they had to stop using it around the time of the Clinton Administration because it had become such an embarrassment and albatross around their necks.
they’ve done the same with Progressive a few times.
I can’t determine if Progressive means you are a democrat or a republican. They’ve got the word so screwed up. I think socialist. What do I know? I’m an under-hubby’s-thumb-wife-deplorable … (Good. They won’t see me coming, when I take the clue 2×4 to, well something, on them. They’ll see me. They just will ignore me.)
I stick to “progs” for the current round of folks; they’re as likely to say they’re “independent” as anything.
“Progressive” has been used to refer to, essentially, technocratic socialism since at least the 1920s. That’s all I’ve used it for, and all I’ve understood it to mean. Unlike other terms, such as “Social Justice Warrior”, it remains in use because it sounds “normal” (unlike the aforementioned SJW, or “woke”), the root of the word is generally considered a good thing, and because it does fit what the progressives think they are doing – namely, progressing toward the inevitable great future. They’re mistaken about that last bit, of course. But that’s the thing about being mistaken. By definition, if you know that you’re mistaken, then you’re not.
Unless you’re mistaken about being mistaken, of course.
But the thing about technocrats is, they should understand SOMETHING about technology. ‘Progressives’ understand nothing. Technology to them is either black magic or a part of the natural world, having nothing to do with knowledge and skills they don’t even know exist.
Today, every child in America is born $89,000 in debt.
The same could also arguably be said for most technocrats, in general, as they tend to be more the managerial class with a not so great understanding of what exactly it is that they’re managing.
Being a generalist is really hard.
So, most people very excellent technical skills are specialists to a degree.
Superficial knowledge of other fields could take a specialist who dabbles in generalism far, if the basic knowledge in each field is not constructed on a deeply flawed foundation.
As it is, most of us wannabe generalists have a profoundly Sisyphean task in front of us.
The specialists who aren’t serious about properly attempting generalism? Think because they learned sound stuff that everyone else learns sound stuff, so they think they can extend their own field in ways that will not work in reality.
Y’know, I thought I was wrong once. But turned out I was mistaken.
There are progressives in both camps, just as there are conservatives. Probably a minority in each case, but still extant. I’d venture to state that a New York Republican is probably more progressive than a Minnesota Iron Range democrat.
As I recall “reality based community” was originally invented by someone in the Bush (43) administration to mock people saying there was no way in reality that the Iraq war could be won. A lot of leftists didn’t realize it was mockery at first and embraced it.
They stopped using “RBC” when we started calling it “community based reality,” which was much more accurate.
No. It was used.by the selected not elected herd for themselves. So, no
I’m still annoyed that the same people who get pissed when you point out that a word doesn’t mean what they are using it to mean are the ones who get pissed that you don’t accept THEIR personal, unstated and unsupported, definition.
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
There is a rumor, I have no idea if it is true (I don’t even know if *anyone* knows), that “woke” originally came from either the chans or alt-right types and it meant “woke on the jewish question”, and then got adopted by SJWs.
Is there any real difference between the alt-righters and the wokies when it comes to Yids?
Of course not.
It depends on if they’re actual alt-right or if it is just the alt-right label being applied to anybody who disagrees with the Biden Regime.
I’m Afraid Tom Lehrer got it right in “National Brotherhood Week”
Oh the Protestants hate the Catholics
And the Catholics hate the Protestants
And the Hindus hate the Muslims
And everybody hates the Jews
I’ve always wondered why the Author let his teachers pets get so hammered all the time.
“I know, I know. we are your chosen people. But just for once, Lord, couldn’t you choose somebody else for a while?” Fiddler On The Roof
All of my folks hate all of your folks
It’s as American as apple pie.
The conventional reason is, “because they kept misbehaving.” But I wonder if there’s a bit of anti-self-righteous warning in it as well for us Gentiles. “If Ipunish My Chosen People like this, you’d better not ever think you’re better than other people.”
It’s that or the grumbling. Israelites in the desert after leaving Egypt “Oh Noes we’ll starve to death why didn’t we stay in Egypt” Author provides manna Israelites say “Ick what is this? We want meat.” Author provides quail, Isaelites say “Quail is boring and we’re thirsty.” Author provides moveable springs as needed. It’s good the Author is not only omniscient, but omni patient. I’d have given them the Sodom and Gomorrah treatment after the quail issues…
Don’t forget, them & Saul, and then da mess Rehoboam made, and then all the killing and ignoring of the prophets, and the warnings and warnings and warnings that Himself gave from Moses onwards about not arseing around and finding out … Mither a God they found out, so. Even ´Íosa mac Seosamh gave them some heated warnings. And they fecked it over right well.
Yes, that is what I was referring to up above. Originally it was an alt-rightism, tho I’d forgotten that it referred to the JQ. When next I heard it, a couple years later, it was tagged onto some leftard, and then I was confused.
We’re mocking their new words faster than they can make them up. Small wonder they’re so concerned about our evil memes and cute cat pictures. Deploy the Neologism Brigades, comrades!
They’re like the jihadis in many ways- the poor bastards think they’re winning, and have zero clue what happens if the norm is wake up and go “WTF?”
At that point, if theyvhave gotten annoying enough, the giant shrugs and destroys them utterly
> I’m old enough to remember when they did that at SJW “It was not a thing we called ourselves. It’s a mockery the right created for us.”
On his blog, Scalzi claimed he had invented the term “Social Justice Warrior.”
Of course he did…
I swear, if that man put half the effort into developing his writing as he does in self promotion, he could be decent
RIIIIIIGHT and FICUS once drove a truck and wet back and forth to Delaware on Amtrak And Beto really is hispanic. What is it that makes Tranzis need to lie, and not only lie but lie in such a refutable idiotic fashion that they ALWAYS get caught out. Its a damn shame, Scalzi had maybe two decent/tolerable books in him ( “Old Man’s War” and “The Androids Dream”) and somehow mainline publishing loves the rest of his rather lame output.
He did ride Amtrak. he’d get the Acela between DC and Wilmington. Total PIA since he took out a full car, delayed the damn train out of Wilmington while they cleared the platform, and then kept us all locked up while he got off at Union station. He was a shambling mess already then.
The only good thing about Obama was he didn’t come to NYC very often. Bill Clinton came all the damn time and used to delay all the flights. Never for state reasons either, he came to catch the shows — private showings mind — and some nookie,
if they’re that important or that afraid they ought to stay home.
Trump wasn’t nearly as disruptive and one of his places is only about 15 minutes from me. The only way we knew he was there was the helicopters.
Yeah, my longest airplane ride ever (Boston to San Jose something over 16 hrs) was due to Air Force 2 flying into Boston (with Dan Quayle on board so LONG ago) on a snowy day. Things were already delayed due to light snow. Our departure was already 1 hour late due to everyone needing to deice. Our slot slid into the arrival slot of Air Force 2 and we sat for 45 minutes or so more. Missed my connection in Denver, got routed Denver to Phoenix to LA to San Jose. Day started at 5AM EST got to San Jose just before 8pm PST and then I had to drive up to Palo Alto where I was staying.
Having the airplane slow down in midflight (from Texas to Connecticut) was — interesting.
Having the captain then come on to tell us we were going to arrive early except the airport was closed owing to snow so they had slowed down, which would STILL probably get us there early provided the airport was open — was also interesting.
(This was the time I asked for some help with setting my seat, and the person disappeared with my ticket and reappeared having putting me on this non-stop flight on the grounds my other one might hit the storm.)
I was going to say he’s delusional, but on second thought, he may have added the “warrior” to it. “Social Justice” is certainly not his creation.
Well, that would be the one thing he actually invented, in that case.
Put the Woke to sleep. Contact your local vet for assistance.
No that’s too delicate and nice for them. We need Coventry. Stick them all in an area near Seattle/Portland and leave them there and use the Kilkenny cat solution to keep going.
I think we should consult Tom Kratman when deciding what to do with them. He seems like the only person really willing to let the punishment fit the crime.
Clancy employed a fitting punishment in Rainbow 6. “You prefer nature to people? Enjoy!”
Perfectly said. I have nothing to add. (Everyone in hearing distance faints.) Let’s go Brandon!
We’re off to a Santa gig at a local parade. I’m not particularly worried but I pray we don’t have any copycat autonomous SUVs in our neighborhood (Sarcasm off).
At least it’s not freezing.
Parade over, big crowds and at least two, “Let’s Go Brandon,” t-shirts.
I remember You Tube videos dedicated to being woke and to discovering every nuance of every problematic thing. I remember one video in particular where the young lady who’d been building the channel explained that she had to take a break, that being woke all the time was damaging and exhausting because it did not allow a person to ever view any event without examining every aspect for error leaving no downtime whatsoever. She didn’t believe any differently than she had about any issue that she promoted but the constant effort that woke required was killing her.
And yes, she definitely absolutely used the term woke. Waking up to the oppression and systems you’re part of is good, isn’t it? No one thought that the word was a bad word.
I is sovereign, or so say I.
I have a video in the making about how big box retailers are slave factories–no “I,” no personal choice, only what is good for the matriarchal collective.
Point and laugh is my new mantra, I can’t help it anymore. They are fools and deserve to be treated as such.
Link here when it’s ready?
I’m up for watching it too.
Watching language evolve is fascinating from an academic POV. Take the long history of the grand and glorious “f-word”, which has almost been normalized now after being outright taboo. (English is unusual for having outright taboo words—most languages have profane words, but not taboo. We’ve almost erased that taboo, though obviously some words are getting the treatment again.) (Hmm. Bringing up how making words taboo was a Victorian thing could be entertaining in some contexts—”how positively Victorian.”)
It’s a bit annoying in some cases, when perfectly good language gets twisted around in a new direction (“literally”, oh dear). But it’s why any proper debate that is actually a debate instead of a heated argument begins with a definition of terms.
Studies In Words by C.S. Lewis
Tons of languages have taboo words. What the taboo subject is — that’s what tends to be different.
For example, Irish and Scottish Gaelic both have all sorts of animals and creatures which have actual names, but traditionally one never used the actual species name. You used a workaround.
For example, the Good Folk. But also the workaround words for things like otters and foxes. Other languages have workaround names for bears or wolves. Eventually the real name tends to get replaced by the taboo name.
Of course words have power. There you are, innocently making innocent, easy noises like “mama” and “papa” and they make everyone FREAK. Why, you discover you can summon two beings by saying their names!
Words have no power at all if they mean nothing to the listener.
My absolute favorite is referring to them as NPCs. Drives them completely crazy. And I love it because it is so true. They can only repeat stock phrases, never, ever, ever deviate from the script and are very minor characters who can be ignored after you talk to them once because you know what they are going to say.
and if you pass them a month later they’ll say the same thing…
Interestingly enough I recently got a newsletter that talked about how people who question the trans-ideology are embracing the term TERF.
Do you have enough material to prepare a textbook,yet?
Something that seems related –
YouTube put a content advisory up on a video posted by a French journalist who has decided to run for President of France. Content advisories require you to sign in to your YouTube account (where you have previously stipulated your age). And if you don’t have a YouTube account, you can’t watch the video. They are normally given if there’s content such as sex, nudity, violence, etc…, but the video doesn’t appear to have any of that. Rather, the most likely reason seems to be because the candidate in question is accused of being “far right”, whatever that means this week.
Racist stopped working once everything was racist, so they’ve moved on to white supremacist.
“White Supremacists” became ineffective as soon as anyone right of Stalin could be labeled one regardless of genetics.
The cry “So and So is a white supremacists” the correct response needs to be “Whatever. Who isn’t?”
I can’t reply where I wanted to, for some reason, but here is a link I saved years ago to the UN report triumphing over the emergence of the Social Justice Warrior. Just though it might be wise to save that actual pdf before it is memory-holed. Too late…
Click to access UNPAN000572.pdf
Well said as always. Funny how that keeps happening to all their terms, huh? You diagnosed the problem exactly, too, not that many of the people who need to hear it will get the message. Considering how things will go if they don’t heed it, though, I’m hoping for that true awakening to reality with you. The alternative is grim indeed.
Comments are closed.