249
It all started with the unofficial godot discord admin dealing with some chuds and people turning their ire towards the Godot Foundation staff instead.
Since Godot has stubbornly remained on the Xitter nazi bar as a valid space for PR and social media interaction and dared to promote the Wokot hashtag and reiterate their progessiveness, the reactionaries infesting that space are now piling on their socials and harassing everyone they can get their eyes on.
Examples
- https://x.com/LifeArtStudios/status/1840230152254509067
- https://x.com/Grummz/status/1840162056928145740
- https://x.com/madewithgodot/status/1841118786964840618
Anyway, solidarity with the targets of harassment. I hope they finally realize that Xitter is a lost cause.
Update: Godot is being review-bombed
Fortunately the reactionary backlash seems to be having the opposite effect
Finally a place I can share my cold takes. (I'm not on Twitter, I won't discuss this on Reddit either.)
The community manager had a meltdown and blocking everyone was a power trip and was wrong.
Godot's tweet was wrong, because it used the word "woke" which immediately drives any conversation into the gutter. Doesn't matter if you're on the right or left, as soon as you say the word "woke" you have ruined the conversation.
It is good that Godot explicitly supports LGBT+ people. They should be welcome. The community CoC should make this explicit, and it does. A tweet to reaffirm this is fine, a cringe joke born from the dredges of Twitter is less fine.
Godot's "revenge forks" are amusing and will not go anywhere. Someone might collect some donations before grifting into the night though.
None of this has any effect on Godot's technical suitability for creating a game.
I’ll share mine too.
Apparently they did receive a large number of tweets that genuinely warranted a ban, but some innocent people got caught in the crossfire. If this is true then Godot did the right thing by responding as neutrally as they can and giving people a way to get unbanned. If it’s not, then yeah very wrong.
Additionally, the Twitter manager apparently said some unprofessional stuff on her personal. I think there was something about her requesting a shower pic from a very large controversial streamer. I feel like that sort of action would bring attention from trolls.
Also I think there was something about a discord mod saying some dehumanising things about the “anti woke” people. Even if these people were causing trouble and deserved a ban, you shouldn’t dehumanise them. That will just make them more aggressive and convince them that “woke” people are indeed some kind of adversary.
I think that word is loosely defined. To the drama people “woke/wokism” seems to relate to the idea of people aggressively wanting all media to contain pro lgbt messaging. I think the official meaning relates to awareness of modern issues. “Woke” seems to be a political term, but I suppose some people feel like calling “woke” political is harmful to lgbt rights?
I think inviting people to present their “wokot” is fine, but it probably shouldn’t be done from an official account.
Hard agree! Strongly agree!
Agreed. Give it a year or two. Possibly sooner. It’ll be somewhat interesting if they do go somewhere and contribute something, although I doubt that will happen.
Regardless of what happened and how it will turn out. If Godot increased their budget, even if it was in an unprofessional way, I guess this is an entirely positive thing for people who aren’t on those proprietary social platforms.
20% by 20%, the progress bar of me agreeing with this assessment went to a 100% as I was reading it.
Revenge fork is a weird name for these forks. A fork is a fork, even a tiny change like changing the logo is a legitimate fork.
If anything if the Godot community could stop harassing the fork owners, that would be great. Them receiving harassment is the most ironic part about this, because there is more proof of that than the harassment the Godot community manager claims they faced.
And as soon as you have “banned” a word from conversation regardless of context, you have ruined your credibility (in my eyes, obviously).
I did not suggest banning any words.
To understand why I'm opposed to the word "woke", you must first acknowledge this fact:
Sometimes people have different definitions of the same word.
If you're willing to accept that, then it logically follows that using a word that people have different definitions of will cause more confusion than understanding. If our goal in speaking is to convey understanding, then that is best accomplished by avoiding words where people have conflicting definitions.
We've all learned that there are facts and opinions, but there is a third category: definitions.
If you watch for it, you will see that many disagreements boil down to nothing more than disagreeing about the definition of a single word. If we temporarily avoid using that word, suddenly we find ourselves in agreement, or at least having a better understanding of each other.
This is a pretty common challenge in philosophy with a very obvious solution:
Define the controversial word (or words) at the top. It’s done all the time in science articles or legal documents.
You can even compound it to point out it’s your version (like calling it Lefty-woke).
By avoiding it, imo, you let them win and “claim” the word, since in their worldview, everyone is now using it like them.
Having said that, this is just my approach, I think the issue with politics is that people assume everyone is using the same language. You got to affirm or confirm that first.
Also, ironically, I think we are talking about the same thing, just using different words lol.
I hear you. It's no good to just cede ownership of a word and allow others to define it however suits them. But... it's Twitter, getting into a good faith philosophical discussion about the definitions of words ain't going to happen, so in many cases it's better to just not bring up the controversial words at all. Guess there's pros and cons to each.
I mean, there are plenty of words that are used almost exclusively to cause offensive. Swears and slurs. Often it can be debatable whether or not a word counts as a swear or slur, but it’s usually pretty clear. I prefer to avoid using words that are intended to cause offence.
The word “woke” doesn’t seem to fall into these categories, but it’s still a term that seems to have been polarised by both groups. I don’t think that word would ruin a discussion that was already political, but it would definitely cause a discussion to become political.
As far as one group is concerned, being “woke” is inherently good and means being aware of modern issues and accepting of marginalised groups.
As far as the other is concerned, being “woke” is requiring all media to have this representation and lashing out when it isn’t inserted in a certain way; thus, you can be supportive of lgbt+ rights and the rights of marginalised groups while still being vehemently “anti woke”.
Because of this conflict in definitions it’s understandable that the Twitter manager might want to use this term, and it’s understandable that people would be against it.
I feel the polarisation of this term may be being done for the drama people on both sides to farm engagement.
"Woke" is a problem because people have different definitions, and no matter what Webster or any other authority says the definition is, people will continue to have differing definitions.
How can we reach understanding when we don't even agree on the definition of words?
This is way to nuanced to deal with on fucking Twitter. If you use the word "woke" on Twitter, expect a lot of misunderstanding, talking past each other, and bad faith arguments to follow.
When something really matters all we have is conversation, or violence. Words do not actually have innate definitions - they have usages that vary between individuals and between peoples over time. If we can understand what the person we're talking to means then maybe we can come to understand each other.
I agree. That's why I suggest (or more like implied) that when we know we have different definitions of a word, we avoid using that word. It's a good thing to at least try if two people really care about understanding.
I agree and did that for the word "homophobia". Saying it lead to a common response "I'm not afraid" but "having a phobia" wasn't the subject matter (instead I say "aversion to homosexuality", though don't need to since leaving Facebook/YouTube years ago).
I actually think this is the reason why there is so much polarization, we are literally talking different languages.
I’m not saying both sides are the same, the opposite actually, one side is willing to use standardized definitions or just use new ones specific to the discussion/debate.
The other side realized they can make people believe in a fascist fantasy by changing the meaning and more importantly, the emotional response behind the meaning.
And it’s not new, this is what it always comes down to. I argue for socialism because I am arguing for cooperating and equal ownership, others argue against it because they (for whatever fucking reason) hear tyranny cause you know, regulations means less freedom.