Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)"Woke", "cancel culture", and the meaning of words [View all]
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to meanneither 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 masterthat's all."
"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 masterthat's all."
Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
There's been a lot of heated discussion around here about what James Carville said about "wokeness", and similarly, about "cancel culture", and if it even exists or not.
It's important to realize in such discussions that words mean different things to different people. Meanings of words and phrases shift and evolve, and, whether some people like it or not, changes happen to the general understanding of what words mean that aren't to everyone's liking. Meanings seldom completely settle down either, so the same words mean different things in different contexts.
It's one thing to insist on what you believe is the "correct" meaning for certain words. It's quite another, however, to impose your own meaning on a word or phrase and then act as if what someone else has said, no matter how they might have actually meant it, must be treated as if their words bear your preferred meaning.
Someone posted that there "Ain't no such thing as 'too woke'". Well, if you insist that the only possible meaning of "woke" is a good one, meaning being conscious of privilege, and seeking and demanding justice and fairness, you'd be right. You can't have too much of that.
But do you really imagine Carville is saying, "Too many Democrats are too concerned with fairness and justice. They need dull their awareness of privilege, and let some nasty shit slip by, if they want to win elections"?
I think it's pretty obvious that Carville is talking about issues like obnoxious levels of word policing, or insisting that everyone must admit they're a racist, or be an even worse racist for not admitting to being one at all. Let's not pretend their aren't people out there in this world who get fucking annoying about trying to one-up each other in performative wokeness.
You might still disagree with Carville, but then get to the real disagreement rather than arguing against a straw-man Carville of your own creation. Try giving Carville the benefit of the doubt about meaning something where he might, just might, have a point, and see where that takes you.
If you want to argue for what words do mean, or should mean, fine. But don't stupidly act as if other people must mean their words way you mean those same words, and then tar them with all that goes along with imposing your meanings.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
80 replies, 5059 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (15)
ReplyReply to this post
80 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Whether you like it or not, you're doing exactly what Carville is calling a problem.
Silent3
Apr 2021
#10
Liberal was a fine word and description of a political ideology for years but then it was hijacked
Demsrule86
Apr 2021
#36
Yeah, I am sorry...I could make the excuse that my house is a disaster as we prepare to sell it
Demsrule86
Apr 2021
#74
Only Black and Brown people and our allies are expected to explain ourselves and adjust our words
StarfishSaver
Apr 2021
#9
Nope. The burden of proof is not on the people who will be most harmed by the misunderstanding.
Baitball Blogger
Apr 2021
#16
Nobody has to explain themselves...everyone can have their own opinion. I agree with
Demsrule86
Apr 2021
#39
Actually, Obama was very vocal about racism being directed at him going during the
Baitball Blogger
Apr 2021
#53
Well, you sure set the record straight with that pithy and well researched response
StarfishSaver
Apr 2021
#59
I know definitely that he was talking about racism around that second election because
Baitball Blogger
Apr 2021
#60
Anecdotes about the few times Obama mentioned race in no way obviates my point
StarfishSaver
Apr 2021
#62
You have spent the last several posts pulling things out of thin air I did not aay
StarfishSaver
Apr 2021
#67
This is revisionist history. When Clinton ran for president, we had 12 years of GOP presidents.
Demsrule86
Apr 2021
#38
I listened to a video with a crazy women afraid that vaccinated people were a danger...
Silent3
Apr 2021
#35
A big part of the problem is that too many people who have never experienced racism
StarfishSaver
Apr 2021
#17
It was never papered over for me. It became blatantly obvious during the 2016 primaries...
Blasphemer
Apr 2021
#40
What is your evidence that Carville was "ignoring whiteness as a social structure"?
Silent3
Apr 2021
#41
+1, He used their framing cause he never heard it being used by black folk. He needs some black fri
uponit7771
Apr 2021
#76