Twitter, which was arguably the hub of wokeness, was bought by Elon Musk in order to neutralize it, and he seems to have succeeded — and not, incidentally, by censoring left-wing users the way Twitter used to censor right-wing ones, but without censoring either. [1
This doesn’t seem correct from everything else I’ve seen on Lemmy about musk enforcing selective censorship. I’m also skeptical that the left can sway twitter back by purchasing subscriptions as he notes in his comment – that seems idealistic but not realistic based on musks behaviors.
A lot of what’s said in the essay makes sense, to me at least, but I don’t think it’s finding the appropriate balance: there are plenty of things that are objectively bad and that do deserve action and response, things that in the past before these movements would just get ignored (and honestly maybe the movements didn’t actually stop anything, maybe they just made groups feel better), but this article doesn’t bring things back to such a conclusion, it gives me the impression that pushing back against such inherently bad behavior can be seen as just people being prigs or zealots, and that’s not correct. Society needs balance, and it likely does need a bit of shame that the prigs feed on to be that mechanism to bring balance, it’s just that the real issue is we’ve become too polarized and too extreme (which actually still does seem like nature finds a way to balance, just with another and opposite extreme…).
This doesn’t seem correct from everything else I’ve seen on Lemmy about musk enforcing selective censorship. I’m also skeptical that the left can sway twitter back by purchasing subscriptions as he notes in his comment – that seems idealistic but not realistic based on musks behaviors.
A lot of what’s said in the essay makes sense, to me at least, but I don’t think it’s finding the appropriate balance: there are plenty of things that are objectively bad and that do deserve action and response, things that in the past before these movements would just get ignored (and honestly maybe the movements didn’t actually stop anything, maybe they just made groups feel better), but this article doesn’t bring things back to such a conclusion, it gives me the impression that pushing back against such inherently bad behavior can be seen as just people being prigs or zealots, and that’s not correct. Society needs balance, and it likely does need a bit of shame that the prigs feed on to be that mechanism to bring balance, it’s just that the real issue is we’ve become too polarized and too extreme (which actually still does seem like nature finds a way to balance, just with another and opposite extreme…).