They are just pointing out that these phrases are used for that, which is why they are recognized as “thought-terminating cliches”, it doesn’t mean they are always used in such a way. You can be aware of manipulative language without being an anarchist or commie.
I feel the opposite, this website has too many right wing chuds annoyingly complaining that eveyone is a tankie or some shit… its fucking annoying give it a rest already jeez
The loaded language having an “intention” doesn’t mean that intent is necessarily consciously realised by the speaker.
When I waa growing up, the f-slur for gay men was used pretty liberally without it having any related meaning to us. We didn’t hate or even dislike gays. It was just “something people said” and we picked up on it and used it.
Now I have to say that a lot of those people really did turn out to be homophobes, but as it was a rural village, the chances were high anyway.
The point I’m making is that speakers can spread the “intention” or connotation of a phrase without even ever having understood it’s meaning.
People just don’t want to think about stuff that doesn’t affect them or that they can’t change.
Yeah, I understand this, and that’s part of the problem. People think they can’t affect change, so they don’t want to think about change, so they say things like “we can’t change things, it is what it is” and then someone who still had hope (but looks up to the speaker) loses their hope of change, and also starts using said language.
Accepting defeat is certain defeat.
Ofc in a lot of conversations, it might not be political at all. Sometimes you can’t change things, as you have no agency. Like we used a lot of these semantic stop signs just as coping tools in the army. Digging a well into frozen ground, manually, in -20C… “it is what it is.”
But it is exactly loaded language. It’s just that not every use is malicious or political. They can be mundane and arbitrary criticisms that are quelled as well.
Jesus Christ, Lemmy is way too anarchist for me to handle sometimes.
People just don’t want to think about stuff that doesn’t affect them or that they can’t change. Not everything is some kind of fascist conspiracy.
It is what it is, ya know?
Que sera, sera.
Es lo que hay
C’est la vie…
Kaya nya.
Hakuna Matata
没办法
They are just pointing out that these phrases are used for that, which is why they are recognized as “thought-terminating cliches”, it doesn’t mean they are always used in such a way. You can be aware of manipulative language without being an anarchist or commie.
I feel the opposite, this website has too many right wing chuds annoyingly complaining that eveyone is a tankie or some shit… its fucking annoying give it a rest already jeez
The loaded language having an “intention” doesn’t mean that intent is necessarily consciously realised by the speaker.
When I waa growing up, the f-slur for gay men was used pretty liberally without it having any related meaning to us. We didn’t hate or even dislike gays. It was just “something people said” and we picked up on it and used it.
Now I have to say that a lot of those people really did turn out to be homophobes, but as it was a rural village, the chances were high anyway.
The point I’m making is that speakers can spread the “intention” or connotation of a phrase without even ever having understood it’s meaning.
Yeah, I understand this, and that’s part of the problem. People think they can’t affect change, so they don’t want to think about change, so they say things like “we can’t change things, it is what it is” and then someone who still had hope (but looks up to the speaker) loses their hope of change, and also starts using said language.
Accepting defeat is certain defeat.
Ofc in a lot of conversations, it might not be political at all. Sometimes you can’t change things, as you have no agency. Like we used a lot of these semantic stop signs just as coping tools in the army. Digging a well into frozen ground, manually, in -20C… “it is what it is.”
But it is exactly loaded language. It’s just that not every use is malicious or political. They can be mundane and arbitrary criticisms that are quelled as well.
Edit also I do not identify with anarchism
i mean, they aren’t wrong, it’s not like it’s an invalid interpretation of it.