this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2024
163 points (86.9% liked)

Asklemmy

43979 readers
744 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Fad or relevant?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] davel@lemmy.ml 162 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Marketing bullshit that appeals to some low-information, vibes-based liberals.

[โ€“] TakiMinase@slrpnk.net 74 points 9 months ago

Greenwashing for profit.

[โ€“] naticus@lemmy.world 38 points 9 months ago

Pretty much. Being liberal myself, it drives me insane seeing the absolute triple people will buy into. Websites aren't the things to target, let's look at things like cruise ships and transitioning to renewable energy.

[โ€“] Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Implying they're not all vibes-based liberals. (try avoid using low-information due to its ties with the racist dogwhistle "low-information voter")

[โ€“] davel@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Iโ€™ve never seen low-information voter used as a racist dog whistle, at least not when it was first used during the Obama years. Has it been used differently since?
UC Berkeley cognitive linguist George Lakoff, 2012: Dumb and dumber: The 'low-information' voter:

As the U.S. presidential campaign heats up, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are piling up money and shoring up their political bases. But they're also going after a few million voters in a handful of swing states โ€” voters considered critical to winning the election. And within this bloc of voters is a special camp: "low-information voters," or LIVs, a term that keeps popping up in magazines and political blogs.

The term is mainly used by liberals to refer to those who vote conservative against their interests and the best interests of the nation. It assumes they vote that way because they lack sufficient information about issues. The assumption being, of course, that if only they had the real facts, they would vote differently โ€” for both their own best interests and those of the nation.

The problem is that, as neutral as the term "low-information voters" may sound, it's pejorative and used to express frustration with these voters, who (we're told) act against their own best interests. Liberals tend to attribute the problem in large part to conscious Republican efforts at misinformation โ€” say, on Fox News or talk radio โ€” and in part to faulty information gleaned from friends, family and random sources.

[โ€“] Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

to refer to those who vote conservative against their interests

They mean black people who don't vote for them. That's why it's a dogwhistle. It became a lot more clear what they meant by that during the 2016 presidential election between Clinton and Trump. The implication being that the reason they weren't voting for them was because they were intellectually inferior, and not because they were making a conscious and willing decision to not vote for a neoliberal hag.

I mean you're probably not murdering anyone by using it, just wanted to tip you off of its problematic connotations.

[โ€“] davel@lemmy.ml 2 points 9 months ago

Good to know, thanks.