It is conveyed that the left should not resort to populism and simple imagery such as “wojacks” We prefer referring to nuanced 500 page essays to convey our arguments so that anyone without sufficient vocabulary and/or time will remain excluded from our circles.
she’s alluding to the fact that these characters — the ‘soyjack’ and ‘gigachad’ — are historically, and still actively are, alt-right charicatures. together with their friends, ‘tradwife’ and ‘doomer (girl)’: they represent misogynistic, racist, antisemitic, and white supremacist tropes.
Must they continue to do so? On their own they are nothing but stand-ins for people or ideologies. If we can reclaim entire slurs, surely we can reclaim these, no?
Even on their own, the shitty alt-right ideology is still present. Notice how the chad, the guy we’re meant to agree with, is very often (not always, but often) a white, blonde-haired, blue-eyed guy?
Or how the guy with the wrong opinions we’re meant to mock is often a drooling person with a dented head?
The ableism and white supremacy of the right is still perceptible in the meme, even when it’s used to push leftist messages.
and on a more basic level, the idea of bad opinion = ugly, good opinion = beautiful is shitty and flirts with white supremacy (because what’s beautiful is very often dictated by eurocentric beauty standards), but that’s a problem in our societies as a whole, not just with this meme
None of those things necessarily need to be true, especially not
the idea of bad opinion = ugly, good opinion = beautiful is shitty and flirts with white supremacy
The shouting crying soyjak for depicting opinions of people who continue to hold stupid opinions despite all evidence to the contrary fits fairly well, and if you don’t like the beauty standards set by the default chad, there’s nothing stopping you from substituting your own, or just using any calm, levelheaded character in its place.
Can you elaborate?
It is conveyed that the left should not resort to populism and simple imagery such as “wojacks” We prefer referring to nuanced 500 page essays to convey our arguments so that anyone without sufficient vocabulary and/or time will remain excluded from our circles.
Thesaurus > Wojack.
she’s alluding to the fact that these characters — the ‘soyjack’ and ‘gigachad’ — are historically, and still actively are, alt-right charicatures. together with their friends, ‘tradwife’ and ‘doomer (girl)’: they represent misogynistic, racist, antisemitic, and white supremacist tropes.
Must they continue to do so? On their own they are nothing but stand-ins for people or ideologies. If we can reclaim entire slurs, surely we can reclaim these, no?
Even on their own, the shitty alt-right ideology is still present. Notice how the chad, the guy we’re meant to agree with, is very often (not always, but often) a white, blonde-haired, blue-eyed guy?
Or how the guy with the wrong opinions we’re meant to mock is often a drooling person with a dented head?
The ableism and white supremacy of the right is still perceptible in the meme, even when it’s used to push leftist messages.
and on a more basic level, the idea of bad opinion = ugly, good opinion = beautiful is shitty and flirts with white supremacy (because what’s beautiful is very often dictated by eurocentric beauty standards), but that’s a problem in our societies as a whole, not just with this meme
None of those things necessarily need to be true, especially not
The shouting crying soyjak for depicting opinions of people who continue to hold stupid opinions despite all evidence to the contrary fits fairly well, and if you don’t like the beauty standards set by the default chad, there’s nothing stopping you from substituting your own, or just using any calm, levelheaded character in its place.
They represent what the meme creator intends, nothing else.
Ah I see thanks