484
submitted 3 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

Hate influencer Chaya Raichik – who goes by “Libs of TikTok” online – is trying to take her show on the road, and it doesn’t appear to be going well.

Raichik gave a speech yesterday at the Indiana Memorial Union at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana, alongside Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN).

During her speech, she ranted about “pornographic” books in schools and moved on to her hatred of everything “woke.”

Some students started laughing.

“Um, do you have a question? Is something funny?” she asked, apparently not expecting people to find her over-the-top concerns funny.

“How do you define wokeness?” someone in the back asked. 

Raichik tried to respond: “Wokeness is the destruction of normalicy [sic] and… And… Um… Uh…” More students started laughing. 

“… of our lives,” she said, apparently thinking she was finishing a sentence.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] seaweedsheep@literature.cafe 163 points 3 months ago

Instead of protesting outside, we should go inside and laugh at people like this. Make them worry that the crowd is just there to humiliate them.

[-] cmbabul@lemmy.world 98 points 3 months ago

Demonstrating the absurdity of fascist claims publicly is one of the best ways to take the wind out of their sails and stop their appeal to potential sympathizers

[-] shani66@ani.social 23 points 3 months ago

Ridicule has a much bigger effect on these people. They enjoy hate because it's fully what they expect, but to be belittled is a direct attack on their ego.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca 33 points 3 months ago

The poor little snowflakes. Can't they take a joke? It's a free country, people should be able to say or do what they want in their lectures. They're just trying to make sure America isn't destroyed by pansification. Why won't everyone wake up!?

[-] Baahb@feddit.nl 7 points 3 months ago

We did wake up, you could say we're woke, even.

[-] shalafi@lemmy.world 158 points 3 months ago

Govenor DeSantis' lawyer clearly defined "woke".

"The governor's general counsel, Ryan Newman, said, in general, it means "the belief there are systemic injustices in American society and the need to address them."

There ya go.

[-] laughterlaughter@lemmy.world 50 points 3 months ago
[-] thefartographer@lemm.ee 26 points 3 months ago

You would be. Fuck you and your common courtesy! #MakeLifeSuck #AnalPineapples

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Empricorn@feddit.nl 17 points 3 months ago

Anyone who's the slightest bit empathetic is. But "conservatives" have poisoned the term.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Asafum@feddit.nl 31 points 3 months ago

So just to be clear... They admitted to the actual definition and are still against it.

Ok folks, we on the left need to start pushing an "anti-puppy kicking" stance just so we can watch the right adopt a "pro-puppy kicking" stance because they have an intrinsic NEED to be in direct opposition to everything that comes from the left.

...well maybe something less harmful than actual puppy kicking, but you get the point.

[-] daltotron@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago

You jest, but this is literally how some 4chan "culture" was conceived, how they take ground. They just kind of, passively associate otherwise innocuous things with their in group, such as, getting a bowl cut, wearing a hawaiian shirt, drinking milk, using the OK symbol. Having a shaved head, using image macros of a frog from a somewhat decent indie comic, stuff like that. Then, over time, people notice these symbols, begin to associate them with the group, and then the in-group can use the out-group's "ridiculous" reaction as internal propaganda, in order to make their opposition appear ridiculous, and appeal more to moderates who just see the surface level aesthetics of some people getting mad and some people goofing off with something innocuous. This is a legitimate political tactic that has been used and abused quite thoroughly. Generally, though, yes, you would want to use something more innocuous and stupid, rather than something blatantly disagreeable, like kicking puppies.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] mechoman444@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago

There is a post above in my feed about a man from Florida (of course) who was running an animal torture syndicate where he would crash small animals for other people enjoyment.

We should protest that, I'll be a wokie it it gets rid of animal cruelty.

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

If you don't agree that America is the greatest country on earth that has never done anything wrong then you're a woke fascist antifa communist

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] mPony@lemmy.world 27 points 3 months ago

The fun part is, that definition is eloquent.

Raishik obviously isn't.

[-] Riccosuave@lemmy.world 152 points 3 months ago

Big surprise, she gets laughed at for .05 seconds and instantly gets triggered. Typical bully behavior. She has no problem dishing it out, but the minute it starts to come back at her she wants to be a fucking martyr. This permanent victim mentality is the textbook exemplification of 21st century conservatism.

[-] MapleEngineer@lemmy.world 107 points 3 months ago

"Woke" is a name for their moral panic. It literally translates to, "anything I don't like. '

The actual definition is, "Aware of issues in society, especially issues of social justice." Like everything else they hate or that makes them feel shitty about themselves so they start hissing the word at anyone they don't like as a slur like, "liberal" and, "progressive".

Embrace the hate. I am a progressive liberal and I am woke. Your hate validates that I am correct.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] aphlamingphoenix@lemm.ee 97 points 3 months ago

Two protestors who were chanting were taken away in handcuffs, according to The Bloomingtonian. Authorities haven’t said whether they will face charges.

What charges? For chanting? Isn't chanting free speech? Were they creating a blockade? Were they causing harm to someone? Or just vocalizing dissent?

[-] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 24 points 3 months ago

Hurting the feelings of a cop? Straight to jail.

[-] Evotech@lemmy.world 14 points 3 months ago
[-] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 3 months ago

I hope you’re joking but it’s hard to tell sometimes.

[-] DashboTreeFrog@discuss.online 71 points 3 months ago

It's so crazy to me that they throw this word around and they haven't come up with a shared definition. I know the article cites that lady who stumbled with the definition last year saying "it’s hard to explain in a 15-second sound bite" but after all this time, you'd think they'd have figured out some kind of ELI5 explanation.

I also don't accept that same person's line of "It is sort of the understanding that we need to totally reimagine and redo society in order to create hierarchies of oppression" because I'd argue what so called "woke" media tries to do is be aware of inequalities that already exist, not create them. But I suppose if they said it that way they'd have to recognize that current systemic inequality is a real thing.

Lots of reasons to hate on the anti-woke movement but at this point, this in particular really bothers me for some reason.

[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 47 points 3 months ago

It’s so crazy to me that they throw this word around and they haven’t come up with a shared definition.

They can't because there isn't one coherent definition that wouldn't crumble under the most basic scrutiny. As an example, from what I can tell they seem to behave as if the definition of woke is "things I don't like right now", which is a ludicrously stupid idea to try to build a laws around, much less a movement.

Any conservatives that are reading this, please feel to correct my assumption of your definition of "woke" any time anyone asks y'all can't give any sane answer that gives anything concrete to what you're trying to communication.

[-] Vorticity@lemmy.world 15 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I think you're right in some cases. Maybe this woman is one of those cases.

I think that for some others "wokeness" is fairly well defined but they know that it is a dog whistle. They know that if they were to explicitly define it they would say the quiet part out lond. They would reveal that "wokeness" means "acceptance, inclusion, and celebration of fundamental differences between people". They would reveal that being "anti-woke" is just a way to say "Hi, my name is Ron and I'm a bigot".

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (29 replies)
[-] Mostly_Gristle@lemmy.world 37 points 3 months ago

It's so crazy to me that they throw this word around and they haven't come up with a shared definition.

That's actually kind of the point. It's like how they use the words "communism" and "socialism." It's a word they've made wholly synonymous with "unquestionably bad," and it's defined by what it isn't rather than what it is so it can be whatever they point at when they say it. Keeping the meaning vague and amorphous is a way to self-police their own thoughts, and short circuit any meaningful discussion or debate before it even starts. It creates a boundaryless field of discomfort they only experience as a gut feeling. As soon as a conversation starts to stray into the territory of acknowledging that people who are different than them might nevertheless be full human beings they get that bad feeling in their gut and say, "I don't know... That sounds kinda woke." And everyone knows that anything "woke" is unquestionably bad. Ta-dah!: uncomfortable thought successfully avoided. Thought that may have led to a change of the status quo successfully avoided.

Even when we're talking about the thought influencers on the Right who are consciously aware of the above, they can't be seen to define it publicly because that would mean they would have to be honest about the seed of hatefulness they're dancing around when they use euphemisms like this. When someone asks them how they define "woke," they can't answer, "You know... N*gger stuff." That would instantly discredit them in the eyes of just about everybody, and they wouldn't be able to pretend to be a serious person making a serious point anymore.

Also, by pinning its meaning down with a definition it would lose much of its power as a propaganda tool. It would lose its universality. It would mean something specific rather than whatever that thing is that you don't like.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 37 points 3 months ago

Ugh, I hate the dickhead move of pretending not to understand someone with a mask. What a child.

[-] dankm@lemmy.ca 9 points 3 months ago

Don't know much about fhe context here, so I won't defend this person if she's actually pretending. That said, I wore masks consistently, and completely understand their value, and would never complain about people wearing them, but...

Holy hell are people harder to understand when wearing them. I know it's a me problem, and I know why it's a problem, so I completely understand why somebody would say that.

Still not enough to justify not wearing one.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] maculata@aussie.zone 31 points 3 months ago
[-] toiletobserver@lemm.ee 9 points 3 months ago
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Teon@kbin.social 26 points 3 months ago

Just an FYI: 'woke' is what happens when you computer "resumes from sleep".

[-] unreachable@lemmy.world 25 points 3 months ago
[-] SoleInvictus@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago

Watch out, language like that will have idiots ripping out their network adapters next.

[-] Teon@kbin.social 7 points 3 months ago

People who are 'anti-woke' can't identify a network adapter, they can't even define 'woke'.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Freewheel@lemmynsfw.com 7 points 3 months ago

I'm not seeing a problem there.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ElcaineVolta@kbin.social 24 points 3 months ago

though the article doesn't embed a video, it does mention one.
this is the only one I could find, uploaded two days ago: https://youtu.be/ot_f5b6ucAQ?si=6IRxIDl6baE-l0QZ

[-] SoleInvictus@lemmy.world 28 points 3 months ago

Props to the guy who asks if Al Qaeda is woke. These two have to be some of the dumbest people alive.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl 23 points 3 months ago

I find is very funny because I seem to remember the conservative chant back in the 2010s was "wake up america" or "wake up sheeple "

People "woke" up.

Conservatives: "No not like that." "Woke is destroying America"

[-] YungOnions@sh.itjust.works 20 points 3 months ago
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago

Aw does she not appreciate turnabout?

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago

Oh she committed the cardinal sin of the classroom. She gave power to the peanut gallery.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2024
484 points (98.4% liked)

politics

18073 readers
2962 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS