• 0 Posts
  • 331 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: July 9th, 2023
  • Septimaeus@infosec.pubtoLefty Memes@lemmy.dbzer0.com•So much for the tolerant leftEnglish
    2·
    3 days ago

    For sure they seize on these terms constantly, but these pundits are opportunistic brawlers. They tend to pick words and phrases they know are easily misconstrued then just amplify the confusion.

    Consider the reason why a bunch of Americans literally never understood the slogan “black lives matter.” Its punchiness as a chant at rallies was the juxtaposition of an extreme understatement with police brutality everyone was intimately aware of. The blunder was trying to use it to spread awareness of the violence (because without awareness of the violence its meaning is lost) so all the pundits had to do to discredit the movement was just… pan away from the violence.

  • Septimaeus@infosec.pubtoLefty Memes@lemmy.dbzer0.com•So much for the tolerant leftEnglish
    164·
    3 days ago

    Honestly real talk for all my inclusion and belonging folks: we really gotta work on our vocab.

    Was the term “tolerance” ever anything but confusing? In my lifetime I’ve only ever heard it used by conservatives dragging out this straw-man. Did “tolerance” once connote open-mindedness, graciousness, charitable judgment, acceptance/inclusion, or anything other than “weary endurance of something unpleasant?” Legit curious.

    Similar examples include “consent” (sexual). Why are we pretending its primary non-figurative meaning isn’t legal or contractual when literally trying to say it’s the opposite? It has a strongly passive connotation, to acquiesce to a request, allow an event to occur, or go along with a plan — as in “tacit consent,” “consent form,” “consent to search,” and so forth. So it sounds gross, like “fine I guess you can do sex to me.” I know we tried to fix it with “enthusiastic consent” but seriously has anyone ever filled out a consent form with enthusiasm? What we really mean is active, reciprocal desire. The point is to give someone what they want if what they want is you, not to secure their consent to get what you want from them, so why the fuck do we insist on still using a word that’s in so many ways the opposite of what we mean?

    I even think Crenshaw’s identity is confusing, because most people want to think of personal identity as something discovered or self-actualized, but intersectionality’s dependence on lived experience implies that to some extent it’s always something that happens to you. It’s how other people perceive you and the labels they give you that furnish these identities. But that probably sounds like a good thing if wearing those labels helped you bond with others similarly labeled, offering you a community or roots. Otherwise, calling these labels “identities” might sound like letting others define who you are instead of deciding for yourself. Gender identity for example is usually approached as an outward expression of one’s true self which can entirely reject the labels others give. But to ask someone “how do you identify” concerning something like ethnicity or race is not treated the same at all. To an outsider, these theoretical constructs might sound preposterous simply because we insisted on using the wrong words for our ideas, then overloading or bending their definitions to the point that a person needs a graduate seminar to actually parse the intended meaning.

    Edit: to be clear, I’m only against the word choices, not the ideas. It’s because it feels like our messaging is hamstrung by insisting on using the wrong words as jargon with wildly different in-group definitions that to outsiders can make us sound inconsistent, confused, or at least difficult to understand. /rant

  • Septimaeus@infosec.pubtoA Boring Dystopia@lemmy.world•Murdoch Outlets and Bezos’ WaPo Demand More Sympathy for Health Insurance Execs
    14·
    2 months ago

    OK, I read the various finger wagger quotes. I’ll concede one point: the shareholders (capital) bear greater responsibility. Yes, he was “just doing his job.” But it’s dirty work, this job.

    It’s true that the primary utility of this type of CEO to a shareholder is liability encapsulation, but if someone hires you to do their dirty work, and you take their money, it doesn’t matter that you’re just doing your job.

    In short, any henchman should know what he’s signing up for. Those exorbitant salaries are hazard pay, make no mistake. If you take these dirty jobs, and prolong the suffering of millions, I think it’s reasonable to expect that you’ll need to watch your back. Forever.

  • Septimaeus@infosec.pubtoMicroblog Memes@lemmy.world•Tis sad, could’ve been frensEnglish
    24·
    2 months ago

    Punk/goth/emo were still distinct. Alt was just an umbrella term. Pretty sure that’s how Alt-TikTok works too.

    The main difference I think is that “alt” used to have more of an othering flavor because it was coded for outsiders, maybe grownups. So if you ever used it to describe yourself, air quotes were implied, like “skater boy.”

    Gen z seems more comfortable using the umbrella term. Perhaps less concerned with getting tagged for posing. Shrug

  • Septimaeus@infosec.pubtoMicroblog Memes@lemmy.world•GitHub CopilotEnglish
    1·
    2 months ago

    Sounds like it’s similar to here. I would have thought we narrowed the gap by now but apparently not. The child caregiver trends are definitely behind along with a host of other gender norms.

    Lol that pricing scheme sounds great, easily a sketch comedy premise from Portlandia, BackBerner, SNL, etc