this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2024
485 points (98.4% liked)

politics

19097 readers
3191 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Hate influencer Chaya Raichik – who goes by “Libs of TikTok” online – is trying to take her show on the road, and it doesn’t appear to be going well.

Raichik gave a speech yesterday at the Indiana Memorial Union at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana, alongside Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN).

During her speech, she ranted about “pornographic” books in schools and moved on to her hatred of everything “woke.”

Some students started laughing.

“Um, do you have a question? Is something funny?” she asked, apparently not expecting people to find her over-the-top concerns funny.

“How do you define wokeness?” someone in the back asked. 

Raichik tried to respond: “Wokeness is the destruction of normalicy [sic] and… And… Um… Uh…” More students started laughing. 

“… of our lives,” she said, apparently thinking she was finishing a sentence.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 158 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Govenor DeSantis' lawyer clearly defined "woke".

"The governor's general counsel, Ryan Newman, said, in general, it means "the belief there are systemic injustices in American society and the need to address them."

There ya go.

[–] laughterlaughter@lemmy.world 50 points 7 months ago (2 children)
[–] thefartographer@lemm.ee 26 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You would be. Fuck you and your common courtesy! #MakeLifeSuck #AnalPineapples

[–] Empricorn@feddit.nl 17 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Anyone who's the slightest bit empathetic is. But "conservatives" have poisoned the term.

[–] laughterlaughter@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Then we'll have to reclaim it.

[–] Empricorn@feddit.nl 3 points 7 months ago

Eh. I'll never be more committed to the term than they will be repelled by it. Maybe we can go back to using "decency" or "empathy"...

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 31 points 7 months ago (5 children)

So just to be clear... They admitted to the actual definition and are still against it.

Ok folks, we on the left need to start pushing an "anti-puppy kicking" stance just so we can watch the right adopt a "pro-puppy kicking" stance because they have an intrinsic NEED to be in direct opposition to everything that comes from the left.

...well maybe something less harmful than actual puppy kicking, but you get the point.

[–] daltotron@lemmy.world 12 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You jest, but this is literally how some 4chan "culture" was conceived, how they take ground. They just kind of, passively associate otherwise innocuous things with their in group, such as, getting a bowl cut, wearing a hawaiian shirt, drinking milk, using the OK symbol. Having a shaved head, using image macros of a frog from a somewhat decent indie comic, stuff like that. Then, over time, people notice these symbols, begin to associate them with the group, and then the in-group can use the out-group's "ridiculous" reaction as internal propaganda, in order to make their opposition appear ridiculous, and appeal more to moderates who just see the surface level aesthetics of some people getting mad and some people goofing off with something innocuous. This is a legitimate political tactic that has been used and abused quite thoroughly. Generally, though, yes, you would want to use something more innocuous and stupid, rather than something blatantly disagreeable, like kicking puppies.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

wearing a hawaiian shirt

Goddammit, really? Those motherfuckers ruin everything.

[–] daltotron@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I don't think it'll get you looked at funny in public, most places, at least, I really hope so, for half my closet's sake, right. But it's definitely become associated with the proud boys and "boogaloo boys". The boogaloo being a word used to describe a highly racialized civil war, purge, day of the rope, what have you, which is coming any day now, rapture style. I think mostly derived from stuff like the turner diaries. A lot of them end up wearing hawaiian shirts because it goes along with their post-ironic fashwave aesthetic. So, probably don't wear a hawaiian shirt to your protest, but, you should've probably been going in black bloc stuff anyways.

God damn, I have terminal online brainrot, huh?

[–] Tum@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

The term "boogaloo" comes from the Internet joke of naming sequels of things like Race War 2: Electric Boogaloo.

[–] mechoman444@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago

There is a post above in my feed about a man from Florida (of course) who was running an animal torture syndicate where he would crash small animals for other people enjoyment.

We should protest that, I'll be a wokie it it gets rid of animal cruelty.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

If you don't agree that America is the greatest country on earth that has never done anything wrong then you're a woke fascist antifa communist

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

...minus the fascist

you're slightly mistaken, they won't adopt a pro-puppy kicking stance, they'll adopt a pro-putting down stray dogs stance. Or something.

[–] Moneo@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

So just to be clear… They admitted to the actual definition and are still against it.

This is not surprising in the least. Seems like pretty fundamental to conservative beliefs.

[–] mPony@lemmy.world 27 points 7 months ago

The fun part is, that definition is eloquent.

Raishik obviously isn't.