I'm not sure where we go after anti-wokeness, but I have a more general suggestion for getting us to a better destination, which is to avoid putting resistance energy into our ideas. I think we all need to move past the reflex to justify our use of language that feels reasonable, because doing so puts us in a defensive posture and that o…
I'm not sure where we go after anti-wokeness, but I have a more general suggestion for getting us to a better destination, which is to avoid putting resistance energy into our ideas. I think we all need to move past the reflex to justify our use of language that feels reasonable, because doing so puts us in a defensive posture and that only solidifies the opposition.
For example, when I talk about men and women -- either in my writing or in dialogue with another person or even in group conversation -- I make ZERO accommodation for the idea that using that language needs to be qualified, or that it needs to include people who don't recognize or identify with a two-sex model.
I think you can just re-draw boundaries around language and ideas by adopting a tone as if you didn't have to FIGHT to get there -- and as if you don't feel you have to fight to defend where you are. You drew your circle and within that circle YOU have dominion to use language in whatever way you feel is fair and reasonable.
You're not engaging anyone else's resistance energy by bringing your own resistance energy to the equation. If someone resists, that's on them, but you've created your own lane where you can SPEAK.
It's a lot like when I'm writing about music artists or bands from previous decades who I think should have been more well-known than they were. I don't mention their lack of success or how they didn't measure-up. I simply state where I think I place them in relation to other music, as if I take it for granted that they have a place at the table. There's no LOBBYING for it. Because when you do that, you already concede ground.
Example: I just posted a Substack piece with the word "faggot" in the title. In the body of the piece, I also use the phrase "your black ass." I took a moment to explain the latter, only because I needed to be clear on the nuance of where I was coming from. But I didn't explain "faggot," and I posted it without those stupid asterisks, which I think are a complete charade. If someone can't gauge the context for how that term, then that's their issue and not for me to exert the energy in MY writing, MY art to resist them.
I think it's important that we all re-claim CONTEXT -- we do that just carrying ourselves as if it's safe to PRESUME that we have leeway. If we just go back to stating things as we feel they are, it sends a very powerful signal that you've ALREADY re-set the terms, and that another person has no dominion over your speech. That way, you're not on your heels.
In case anyone's interested, here's my Substack post:
I'm not sure where we go after anti-wokeness, but I have a more general suggestion for getting us to a better destination, which is to avoid putting resistance energy into our ideas. I think we all need to move past the reflex to justify our use of language that feels reasonable, because doing so puts us in a defensive posture and that only solidifies the opposition.
For example, when I talk about men and women -- either in my writing or in dialogue with another person or even in group conversation -- I make ZERO accommodation for the idea that using that language needs to be qualified, or that it needs to include people who don't recognize or identify with a two-sex model.
I think you can just re-draw boundaries around language and ideas by adopting a tone as if you didn't have to FIGHT to get there -- and as if you don't feel you have to fight to defend where you are. You drew your circle and within that circle YOU have dominion to use language in whatever way you feel is fair and reasonable.
You're not engaging anyone else's resistance energy by bringing your own resistance energy to the equation. If someone resists, that's on them, but you've created your own lane where you can SPEAK.
It's a lot like when I'm writing about music artists or bands from previous decades who I think should have been more well-known than they were. I don't mention their lack of success or how they didn't measure-up. I simply state where I think I place them in relation to other music, as if I take it for granted that they have a place at the table. There's no LOBBYING for it. Because when you do that, you already concede ground.
Example: I just posted a Substack piece with the word "faggot" in the title. In the body of the piece, I also use the phrase "your black ass." I took a moment to explain the latter, only because I needed to be clear on the nuance of where I was coming from. But I didn't explain "faggot," and I posted it without those stupid asterisks, which I think are a complete charade. If someone can't gauge the context for how that term, then that's their issue and not for me to exert the energy in MY writing, MY art to resist them.
I think it's important that we all re-claim CONTEXT -- we do that just carrying ourselves as if it's safe to PRESUME that we have leeway. If we just go back to stating things as we feel they are, it sends a very powerful signal that you've ALREADY re-set the terms, and that another person has no dominion over your speech. That way, you're not on your heels.
In case anyone's interested, here's my Substack post:
https://feedbackdef.substack.com/p/you-fuckin-faggot-get-the-fuck-out?r=jysu
Salomé -- if you'd prefer that people don't post their own links in Black Sheep comments, I'll take it out.