As Donald Trump stood in the Capitol Rotunda last week, blundering his way through his second oath of office, online liberals were preoccupied with debating another matter: who will be the first Democrat to call Republicans the R-word? Setting aside the question of whether they should use a term widely considered an ableist slur, that very debate was revealing, for a number of reasons.
On the morning of inauguration day, #DarkWoke began trending on Twitter/X. The hashtag – ostensibly a tongue-in-cheek reference to “Dark Brandon” – emerged in reaction to an exchange between the Democratic congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the far-right influencer Chaya Raichik.
Over the weekend, Ocasio-Cortez posted an Instagram Reel in which she explained her lack of interest in attending any inaugural festivities. “I don’t celebrate r[*]pists,” she says bluntly. Raichik, whose social media account @LibsofTikTok is widely recognized for proliferating the anti-LGBTQ+ “groomer” moral panic, shared the video, declaring “another person Trump should sue”.
The congresswoman then retweeted Raichik, stating: “Oh, are you triggered? Cry more.” The post accrued more than 17m views, and in the process it birthed both a meme and a debate about Democrats’ approach to messaging for the next four years.
Should liberals start using slurs? No – and anyone who seriously entertains such a question has no business crafting comms strategy. It’s clear that Democrats’ current approach to messaging, however, is broken – and party leaders have no conception of how to fix it.
Yahoo News: What is Dark Woke & should the left embrace it? An explainer
In a lot of ways, this feels like the core of what’s behind Dark Woke — treating MAGA the exact same way they’ve been treating everyone else. And if that means kicking civility to the curb, then so be it. Sorry, Michelle Obama, they went low and we’re meeting them right there in the dirt.
But it’s entirely possible to embrace Dark Woke without becoming a wannabe edgelord who’s lost the plot. As one person on X pointed out, it’s kind of even an internet-centric repackaging of punk.
Oooo looks like I’ll be the one to start a struggle sesh
On one hand, an argument against it could be that one isn’t necessarily “doing anything” intentionally by shitposting; like the aim in and of itself isn’t to radicalize people I would think. And if the buck stops there in terms of what someone is offering in terms of praxis, then its just shitposting. But shitposting is part of what kept me around here, the combo of levity and serious politics. I didn’t really know much about Lenin, Stalin, or Mao and I learned a bunch about them here and started reading theory and books suggested by people here. So I’d say there’s a peripheral effect that can get people to be more curious and further radicalized, but its not like, direct action or whatever. So I can see it from both sides, I think. Anyway that’s it for me lol
My main argument is that rest is praxis if you’re also doing praxis other than rest. Folks who think that only work is praxis are capitalism brained
Makes sense, kinda similar to my thought that it can be praxis if its not the ONLY “praxis” you’re engaging in. I hadn’t thought of rest being praxis, when I think of praxis I think of it being an intentional action with a desired outcome. Which i guess rest is or can be, but then doesn’t that mean that most things could be considered praxis though? (Genuine question)
I think most things are praxis yeah mostly because I think you’re either living your life in a way that is consistent with supporting revolution or you aren’t. Praxis to me isn’t a button you turn on or off it’s a way you live your life.
Interesting take, I’ve not really heard it framed that way before but it makes sense, thanks for sharing with needed