263
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
- https://x.com/LifeArtStudios/status/1840230152254509067
- https://x.com/Grummz/status/1840162056928145740
- https://x.com/madewithgodot/status/1841118786964840618
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
No. Being woke is only considered bad in toxic echo chambers where they've tried to poison the word.
Most people who self report as "anti-woke" repeat infectious and carefully crafted but fallacious talking points whenever the term "woke" is said.
But if you bring up a situation where a minority is getting the bad end of the stick and they agree with you that it's bad, they don't realise that they themselves are being woke. They agree with being woke so long as the label "woke" isn't used. It's when you point that out that they start to realise that they've been poisoned against the term.
Being woke simply means that some people don't often get the same affordances as others.
If you accept the general fact that women tend to get paid less for the same amount of work, then you're woke.
If you accept the general fact that black people might not get hired if a person doing the hiring is racist, then you're woke.
If you accept the general fact that some people have to hide the fact that they're not heterosexual in some countries otherwise they'll suffer the death penalty, then you're woke.
See I think that's not what the "anti-woke" people think it means. Turning to urban dictionary, they're using this definition:
Irrespective of whether or not anyone actually is woke, I hope you agree that it wouldn't be a good thing (according to that definition).
That's exactly what I pointed out. The people who provide them their information are actively trying to poison the word to the point that it means something else. But it doesn't, because the poisoning only works in the echo chambers that spread that information.
That would be one of the attempts to poison the word. It's worth pointing out that anyone can add a definition to urban dictionary and it's quite often that trolls try to overwhelm existing definitions on there.
That comes back to what I said before. People who self report as anti-woke are against anything that uses the label "woke", until they look at what's under the label and they realise they aren't against any of the points the "woke" labelled thing is doing.
They're not actually anti-woke, they're anti-incorrect-label.
I think you're in your own echo chamber. It's not an attempt to poison the word, that's just how its meaning has gradually evolved.
If you ask the general public - not far left people on Twitter - I think they would be more likely to agree with the definition I linked rather than the original definition (you have "woke"n up to social injustice, which is obviously a good thing).
(I'll except the "perpetuate mental illnesses as the norm" bit - I think that is veering into the far right rather than what the man on the Clapham omnibus actually thinks.)
We have examples of words being used to negatively identity specific minorities being purposely used by members of the minority to change public opinion.
I see no reason it couldn't happen the other way around: "to poison the word" once used by minorities to change public opinion.