273
Godot staff are facing a huge reactionary backlash on Xitter for being "woke" (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by to c/godot@programming.dev
132 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

It all started with the unofficial godot discord admin dealing with some chuds and people turning their ire towards the Godot Foundation staff instead.

Since Godot has stubbornly remained on the Xitter nazi bar as a valid space for PR and social media interaction and dared to promote the Wokot hashtag and reiterate their progessiveness, the reactionaries infesting that space are now piling on their socials and harassing everyone they can get their eyes on.

Examples

Anyway, solidarity with the targets of harassment. I hope they finally realize that Xitter is a lost cause.

Update: Godot is being review-bombed

Fortunately the reactionary backlash seems to be having the opposite effect

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

"Woke" is a problem because people have different definitions, and no matter what Webster or any other authority says the definition is, people will continue to have differing definitions.

How can we reach understanding when we don't even agree on the definition of words?

This is way to nuanced to deal with on fucking Twitter. If you use the word "woke" on Twitter, expect a lot of misunderstanding, talking past each other, and bad faith arguments to follow.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    When something really matters all we have is conversation, or violence. Words do not actually have innate definitions - they have usages that vary between individuals and between peoples over time. If we can understand what the person we're talking to means then maybe we can come to understand each other.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I agree. That's why I suggest (or more like implied) that when we know we have different definitions of a word, we avoid using that word. It's a good thing to at least try if two people really care about understanding.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago*

    I agree and did that for the word "homophobia". Saying it lead to a common response "I'm not afraid" but "having a phobia" wasn't the subject matter (instead I say "aversion to homosexuality", though I don't have that conversation now since leaving Facebook/YouTube years ago).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    How can we reach understanding when we don't even agree on the definition of words?

    I actually think this is the reason why there is so much polarization, we are literally talking different languages.

    I’m not saying both sides are the same, the opposite actually, one side is willing to use standardized definitions or just use new ones specific to the discussion/debate.

    The other side realized they can make people believe in a fascist fantasy by changing the meaning and more importantly, the emotional response behind the meaning.

    And it’s not new, this is what it always comes down to. I argue for socialism because I am arguing for cooperating and equal ownership, others argue against it because they (for whatever fucking reason) hear tyranny cause you know, regulations means less freedom.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent