Yes, I am interested in doing a linguistic and cultural analysis/history of the term and married concepts and I keep getting responses like I want to argue
The term “politicize” is probably key to look at, since that’s synonymous with “making things political.” According to this it started gaining steam was in the 60’s, gaining a lot of use by 1980 and peaking around 2000. Politicization followed a similar trend, except it’s still rising in use.
I suspect given the dates that it was being used in the context of “politicizing Vietnam” (as ridiculous as that sounds). The implication being that once the country goes to war everyone should be expected to support it, and that critics of the war are just trying to smear their political opponents to advance their own careers, to the detriment of a common cause. This morphed slightly into the modern gamer use of “politicizing games,” with the implication that the common cause should be to entertain the audience, and that advancing any other agenda detracts from that (somehow)
Hmm, I was thinking it may have been something to do with the separating the economic sphere from the political, and that politicians that were doing anything other than being efficient stewards of “the economy” were doing it for “political” reasons.
Your one reminds me of the response to school shootings where republicans accused anyone talking about the outcomes or prevention of school shootings in their immediate aftermath were “politicising” the event.
I think there might also be the related form of “virtue signalling”, like politics as something duplicitious (like… saying you’re gonna do stuff and then not doing it once elected).
I feel like “office politics” has retained the better version of meaning, in that it reflects ass kissing and being disingenuous i.e. approaching your workplace with power in mind rather than just doing your job.
I would probably ask them to point to an apolitical show, mostly out of curiosity. I don’t think I’m convincing anyone with this line of thought though
If the history of chuds being asked this question tells me anything they are going to answer the singe most political show in the history of television. Remember, these are the people who did this: https://nitter.net/9_volt_/status/827887491738894337?lang=en (I will never stop bringing this up).
I have said “manchild” to describe people like but I think that’s a disservice to actual children who are a lot more curious, creative, earnest, and capable of learning than an aging billionaire creep is.
Honestly there isn’t a child on the planet who doesn’t contribute more net good to the world in a single day then Elon Musk has in his entire adult life. And I’d rather spend a whole year looking after the least pleasant children I worked with all by myself then spend 5 seconds in Musk’s presence.
So yes, I agree, describing Musk as a “manchild” is an insult to children.
Some people do have negative value to society, such as derivatives managers. The person mopping the floor in the office has positive value that the derivative manager wants to nullify to public perception by lobbying and propagandizing how little worth the floor mopper is.
Similar deal with hoarding the metaphorical toys and having actual contempt for children, including his own.
Is he suggesting Zack Snyder or cop show writers do not shoehorn their politics into shows?
There’s two kinds of thing: “thing I agree with” and “political”
Race? White and political. Gender? Male and political. Sexuality? Straight and political. etc etc
I would love to sit down and tease apart how this line of thought came to be
The pervasiveness of US propaganda is not to be underestimated.
It’s called status quo. Political is when you change status quo. I don’t believe it’s any more complicated than that.
I think that’s accurate, but don’t think it explains the origins of the meaning. Like, were people using the word that way in the 1920s?
No, but the thinking itself predates that comfortably, ‘political’ is just the term used now
Women only got the right to vote in the US in 1920 and the country still had ‘Colored’ and ‘White’ restrooms/seating/etc for decades after
Yes, I am interested in doing a linguistic and cultural analysis/history of the term and married concepts and I keep getting responses like I want to argue
The term “politicize” is probably key to look at, since that’s synonymous with “making things political.” According to this it started gaining steam was in the 60’s, gaining a lot of use by 1980 and peaking around 2000. Politicization followed a similar trend, except it’s still rising in use.
I suspect given the dates that it was being used in the context of “politicizing Vietnam” (as ridiculous as that sounds). The implication being that once the country goes to war everyone should be expected to support it, and that critics of the war are just trying to smear their political opponents to advance their own careers, to the detriment of a common cause. This morphed slightly into the modern gamer use of “politicizing games,” with the implication that the common cause should be to entertain the audience, and that advancing any other agenda detracts from that (somehow)
Hmm, I was thinking it may have been something to do with the separating the economic sphere from the political, and that politicians that were doing anything other than being efficient stewards of “the economy” were doing it for “political” reasons.
Your one reminds me of the response to school shootings where republicans accused anyone talking about the outcomes or prevention of school shootings in their immediate aftermath were “politicising” the event.
I think there might also be the related form of “virtue signalling”, like politics as something duplicitious (like… saying you’re gonna do stuff and then not doing it once elected).
I feel like “office politics” has retained the better version of meaning, in that it reflects ass kissing and being disingenuous i.e. approaching your workplace with power in mind rather than just doing your job.
It’s only politics if it makes the consumer uncomfortable.
Seriously watch any random episode of Blue Bloods.
I would probably ask them to point to an apolitical show, mostly out of curiosity. I don’t think I’m convincing anyone with this line of thought though
If the history of chuds being asked this question tells me anything they are going to answer the singe most political show in the history of television. Remember, these are the people who did this: https://nitter.net/9_volt_/status/827887491738894337?lang=en (I will never stop bringing this up).
Hahaha yes beautiful I do not get tired of seeing it
I would call their mind childlike but It would be an insult to children to call chuds minds childlike.
Yeah. Ive worked with kids. Kids are much more curious and open minded then these people.
I feel the same way.
I have said “manchild” to describe people like
but I think that’s a disservice to actual children who are a lot more curious, creative, earnest, and capable of learning than an aging billionaire creep is.
Honestly there isn’t a child on the planet who doesn’t contribute more net good to the world in a single day then Elon Musk has in his entire adult life. And I’d rather spend a whole year looking after the least pleasant children I worked with all by myself then spend 5 seconds in Musk’s presence.
So yes, I agree, describing Musk as a “manchild” is an insult to children.
Some people do have negative value to society, such as derivatives managers. The person mopping the floor in the office has positive value that the derivative manager wants to nullify to public perception by lobbying and propagandizing how little worth the floor mopper is.
Similar deal with
hoarding the metaphorical toys and having actual contempt for children, including his own.
“political content”