People can do what they want with their bodies, but "my body, my choice" does not apply when your body is a vector for an infectious disease that has the capacity to collapse hospital systems. If that were the case we'd be riddled with measles and tuberculosis.
When we're talking about an infectious disease, it's not just your body.
Frankly, as a TB survivor, I find this hilarious. The minute I was diagnosed, I was placed in the hands of public health & was required by law to do everything they said. Including taking drugs for 9 months that impaired my liver function & gave me serotonin poisoning.
But oh no, you have the option to take a vaccine?! And someone is asking you to wear a piece of cloth on your face?
I would've gone to jail if I'd stopped taking TB drugs that cause organ damage. I had someone check under my tongue every day to make sure I took every damn drug
And you know what? This is why we don't have TB on a large scale anymore. Because public health has court orders to make everyone who's infected get treated w/ drugs that incapacitate you, damage your liver, and turn all your bodily fluids orange. For nine months.
But boo-hoo, you have to wear a mask. And someone is offering you a free vaccine.
So sad.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I'm sorry, but can a Black woman just do her job & look out for herself without being framed as somehow opportunistic, fearful, or otherwise unusual? Last time I checked "working with the boss" & "improving one's own portfolio" was how employment works
I do not mind stories on Harris's place in the administration, but these frames are ridiculous. There's nothing weird about her wanting to be a parter to Biden. And there's nothing weird about her building her own portfolio. Leave the opportunism out of it.
From everything Biden's said, he wants a VP who is both a partner to him and a person w/ their own ideas, independence, and influence.
So sounds like this specific union is working out well for both people at this moment in time.
Corporations are not heroes in our current battles, but the rise of "woke capital," if that's what we're calling it, is a good thing as it reflects markets responding to shifting social views. It's good to have multiple pressure points for social change-both markets & governments
If we didn't have market pressure, how else would we appeal to the state governments who are imposing bigoted policies on their citizens? I'm not saying market pressure works in all cases, but insofar as it remains a tool, that is a good thing.
Bruenig has sometimes said that she is referring to mixed economies like Denmark's when she speaks of socialism. Well, Denmark is taking an increasingly rightward stance on refugees. It would be a *good* thing if their citizenry used market pressure to protest the government.
Unofficial poll for Black people only. Comments are very welcome.
Did you ever use the word "woke" to positively describe a white person?
regardless of whether you, personally, used the term, was there ever a time when you heard people say "woke" and you interpreted it in a positive sense?
regardless of the original meaning, let me ask about right now: when you hear the term "woke" from politicians or journalists, do you feel like the connotation is:
The responses to this tweet reveal a phenomenon that is pretty unique to this site. People seem to forget principles of natural language, such as the fact that we often speak in general terms. If we made these same demands in real life, our communication would break down
Imagine if I said, in real life, “Dogs are so friendly!” and then someone interrupted me to say, “Well, actually, what you’ve said is inaccurate and implies that all dogs are friendly when, in fact, some dogs are not friendly at all.”
“I love beaches.” “All beaches? Some have mudflats that people get stuck in & die”
“Driving sober prevents car crashes." “Well, not all accidents are caused. . . ”
“Human beings cause climate change.” “All human beings? Let me issue a corrective. Some human societies. . . ”
It's good to talk about politically effective language. It's also important to not dismiss POC and/or LGBTQ scholars' paradigm-shifting approach to language. If it were just white cishet scholars suggesting new terms, that would be one thing, but that's not what's happening
For example, I personally wouldn't define the efforts of scholars of color to change certain linguistic frames as "exclusionary language adopted by an insular set of hyper-educated people." They're working on reframing academic fields traditionally dominated by whiteness.
Does that mean that every expression gaining traction in academia will have equal success in general political discourse? No. But this has never been the case. And this doesn't just apply to socio-cultural terminology, but to all academic terminology.
I don't want to give this racist the time of day, but I will use this opportunity to say a couple of things. People's regional dialects often get "stronger" when they are in the region of their native dialect. AAVE speakers also often code-switch between *multiple* dimensions 1/
So, a white New Yorker might sound way more "New York" in NYC than they do in their new home of CA. Speakers of AAVE doesn't just switch regionally, though. They often switch between broad AAE/AAVE, regionally-specific AAVE, as well as varieties of "Standard American." 2/
AAE/AAVE originated in the South & has then developed different regional varieties after diaspora. However, the rich oratorical tradition of AAE/AAVE carries a lot of the Southern tradition, such that an orator from Illinois might sound more "Southern" when giving a speech. 3/