elmer fudd was called a “nimrod” and most kids didn’t realise it was a sarcastic reference to the biblical hunter. this gap in knowledge meant the word slowly became an insult.

its quite fascinating to watch what words become.

in the wake of conversations about ai, you see the derogatory use of “luddite” often.

i have the privilege of being close friends with a born and bred nottinghamian who’s also an activist—so the rich, cultural tradition of radical resistance in nottingham is their spiritual inheritance.

you pick up a few things.

“luddite” has come to mean “anyone who hates technological progress”. it is almost synonymous with “caveman”.

the truth of the luddites is far more complex. when the industrial revolution birthed cotton mills in england, the economy was massively dependent on cloth production. thousands of people had been working with textiles for generations—weaving from their own cottages, setting their own prices based on the quality of their craft, selling at market. they lived dignified, autonomous lives.

the clothworkers saw the factories coming. it’s important to note: their initial beef was with how factories were organised. they protested the idea of working under one roof where one person profits.

the clothworkers petitioned parliament and organised peacefully. the government dgaf and sided with industry, rolling back the regulations and legal protections the clothworkers had relied on for their livelihoods. the financial success of the factories enriched the landed gentry and britain quickly descended into a conservative era.

when the clothworkers exhausted all pacific options, they resorted to violence. they sabotaged the cotton mill machinery in the factories and sparked a countrywide movement.

a lot of luddites were executed by the state for their resistance and property damage.

(it’s a fascinating bit of history—you should definitely read more about it if you can.)

the clothworkers tried to defend their autonomous way of living and the government refused. their refusal kickstarted the very corporate structure we see today. knowing all this—i ask you: who benefits from reducing “luddites” to ignorant savages who just can’t stand technology?

who benefits from stripping away their radical motivations?

whenever i watch a tv show and a character casually equates “anarchy” (the leftist system of a nonhierarchal governance based on voluntary cooperation) with lawless, violent chaos—i find myself asking the similar question.

who benefits from how this is being framed?

in order to ask and answer that question, you have to know to ask it. you have to be alert when words you’ve never thought about are being wielded in a way that’s suspicious and you have to be curious enough to seek out the origin of them.