this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2024
371 points (93.0% liked)

Asklemmy

43945 readers
638 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] davel@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Class war isn’t about economics, it’s about power.

The “anti-woke” discourse is not as organic/grassroots as it appears; a large chunk of it is astroturfed.

The media don’t simply reflect the public discourse, they also shape it. Who owns the media? The capitalist class. They use the media to keep the working class divided, fighting each other, and focused on blaming their problems on something, anything but the capital class itself.

Noam Chomsky - The 5 Filters of the Mass Media Machine

Conservative pundits (and liberal ones, for that matter) are paid handsomely to distract people, to maintain our false consciousness, to pit us against each other.

Who owns the politicians? Again, the capitalist class, who fund their political campaigns. When politicians like Ron DeSantis rant about “woke ideology,” it’s almost always kayfabe; it’s an act.

This is not to say that none of it is organic. Our upset and our anger comes from our deteriorating lives under late stage/neoliberal capitalism—wherein the capitalist class squeezes ever more out of us—creates fertile ground for reactionary fervor.

[–] shinigamiookamiryuu@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You got all that from me saying that progress is going backwards because the people sweeping change are being counter-intuitive in who they lump together?

[–] davel@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

How did this conversation go from “good-intentioned politicians” to whatever might be going on in Iran? Do you even know what’s really going on there? Because I don’t.

Imperial core countries and corporate media feed us a lot of garbage about countries they consider their “enemy,” so you should be skeptical of what they tell us. With that said, I’m sure LGBTQ+ rights stand to be improved in Iran, but I don’t really know if they’re getting better, worse, or remaining the same right now. What I do know is that the US wants to paint Iran in as bad a light as possible, so I wouldn’t be surprised if the media should run more stories about the plight of LGBTQ+ people in Iran.

[–] shinigamiookamiryuu@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You then don't see the irony in telling the LGBT "we stand with you" and then going to homophobic nations and homophobic sects and saying the same thing (because they promise help with a certain advancement in awareness)?

That goes along with what I was talking about, about people making deals with the devil (a figure of speech by the way). I'm pretty sure this phenomenon does not need any help from class phenomenon, positive or negative, in order to exist.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The irony of who telling which LGBT people and subsequently going to “homophobic” states and saying the same thing to whom?

If someone understands what you’re trying to say, perhaps they can translate for me.

[–] shinigamiookamiryuu@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

There is no "which" or "whom". That's implied in the main inquiry. Unless you just wanted to talk about class to someone.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

There is no “which” or “whom”.

So there is a disembodied conversation going on between two non-entities, or groups of non-entities?

That’s implied in the main inquiry.

What is implied in what inquiry?

I’ve actually run into you before, in another post, and you didn’t make sense that time, either.