cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/20487558
skin destroyer @gloomingly
(trying to make small talk) notice any patterns lately
2:34 PM - Oct 1, 2024 · 73.9K Views Follow
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/20487558
skin destroyer @gloomingly
(trying to make small talk) notice any patterns lately
2:34 PM - Oct 1, 2024 · 73.9K Views Follow
really would like to see the article if you have it on hand. i can see the argument for both sides, so i would like to read more and potentially be persuaded one way or the other
I can’t, for the love of god, find the damned post and comment that talked about it, no matter how much I look for it.
Where I found it.
It was about the same screenshot though, and posted in Lemmy not too long ago (maximum 2 days before this post)
But, like, this is how language works. If you normalize a different meaning to a word, that word loses its previous function. That’s what oppressive regimes and cultures do to the most useful linguistic tools of the oppressed.
Short explanation
They use the specific word, to identify and objectify those that use it first, and then co-opt the word and change the useful meaning to something that helps the oppression instead.
Am example is the word “woke”, coming from poor African Americans, meaning to keep an eye out for dangerous racists. That word being, over a long period of time, stolen and bastardized by those same racists, and turned into a tool for othering whoever is not part of their cultural group.
So, it definitely works, and it should work better the more secretive the original meaning is.
that’s true, but there’s also an argument of resources and conformity to consider. oppressive regiemes also have large amounts of media at their disposal and tend to be very good at issuing orders from the top down, so their ability to define things is pretty strong
we don’t really… have those things :') so our ability to make an impact isn’t really as great, i would think. and given that, maybe it’s best to recognize and educate people on what the existing dog whistles are, rather than trying to reclaim them?
I mean, in an abstract sense your concern is valid, but, at least how I see this case, this racist dogwhistle is very fragile, in order to stay discreet, and the meme is very low-stake to use.
The “battle arena” is also the chaotic “meme market”, where there is much less top-down control too, and individual idea virality reigns king. That is to say, as long as you explain your idea well, as long as your meme “hits a nerve”, it will spread either way.
To be exact about what I think, I think we should do both: 1. Use the meme as a meme, because it’s fun and dilutes the use of the dogwhistle, and 2. Explain the dogwhistle when we get the chance, without telling people to not use the meme. The explanation helps expose the racists, the meme delivers the antidote.