Live data from Hacker News

How did American “wokeness” jump from elite schools to everyday life?

economist.com

171–180 of 1001 posts

Re: How did American “wokeness” jump from elite schools to everyday life?

#171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gendered nouns are kind of silly and antiquated when you think about it though, and many languages have a neuter gender too (e.g. German). The "X" suffix is an attempt by younger Spanish speakers to introduce a neuter gender to their native language. English doesn't have gendered nouns, but we do have gendered pronouns, which not all languages have. Chinese doesn't have gendered pronouns, which is why you'll often he…

> Chinese doesn't have gendered pronouns, which is why you'll often hear native Chinese speakers accidentally refer to a woman in English as "he". This is interesting because I've heard this explanation before from an international student. You still have 他/he 她/she despite them being pronounced the same, so the gendered pronouns still do exist, but the mistake of switching he/she in conversation is still commonly ma…

I guess that if you speak Chinese as a first language you're not expecting to need to distinguish between 他 and 她when speaking, so it's harder to remember when speaking a language that has two different pronunciations.

I believe older Chinese used 他as a fever neutral pronoun and using 她 is a fairly recent change to mimic western languages.

Re: How did American “wokeness” jump from elite schools to everyday life?

#172
post #7

I'm glad that the Economist points out at the end that 'wokeness' has become a favorite of business, and the reason is pretty obvious, as a movement it's self-defeating because all identitarian politics eventually ends in infighting, with its subjective, choice and preference based worldview it's actually ill-equipped to move anything. It might exist in academia or PR departments or journalism or facebook pages and t…

I'm curious what any possible alternatives might be to the practical problems "wokeness" tries to present itself as a solution to. I don't think the problem of racism and sexism (two classic "woke" topics) are "Left" problems, which is why it strikes me as odd that I don't see ideas about how to deal with them coming from everyone, beyond a straight denial they exist, or that it's actually the fault of the folks expe…

If you ignore the American political spectrum for a hot minute and get down to the core of it, a practical definition of "left" and "right" is "no hierarchy" vs "hierarchy". This holds true in economics as well as social issues:

Racism is a system of hierarchy where one race is inherently good and normal and others are deviations from that, or at least every race is good or bad in some ways and there is an implied value judgement in every assertion about them. Not every person doing a racism necessarily fully commits to racial pseudoscience but if pressed they'll have to justify their conceptions by citing them. Racial mixing of course is unacceptable as it goes against this order and since the racial social castes are a natural order, any attempt to overcome them is bad and anyone making it further than their kind is expected to should either be celebrated for their excellence (and everyone else be held to their standard to demonstrate their insufficiency) or be viewed with suspicion because they probably cheated or got handouts.

Sexism is a sexual hierarchy with women being one way, men another and everyone who doesn't neatly fit into either category being deviant and a troublemaker. It's not so much about one sex being better at all things than the other, much like racism, but about there being a natural order and everything being well as long as people follow it.

Economic right wing thought posits that there is a natural order in that poverty is largely a failure of the individual and can be overcome with sheer will so wealth is the just spoils of success and personal quality and charity is the only acceptable form of welfare because it is for the wealthy to decide how to allocate their deserved riches.

This is also why right-wing people have recently picked up the term "Marxist" (or even "Neomarxist") to describe not just socialists but also progressives in general, even when they lean economically more right-wing than left.

The question of how you align within that spectrum is mostly a question of whether you think a natural order exists and/or should be enforced in each of these dimensions (and there are probably more). Most Democrats don't want to abolish private ownership, they just want more regulations to shift some of the wealth to the lower classes, i.e. balance out the hierarchy rather than getting rid of it. They are however more likely to be opposed to the idea of a natural order in social questions.

Re: How did American “wokeness” jump from elite schools to everyday life?

#173
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Leftist movements tend to consume themselves in escalating purity spirals. https://unherd.com/2020/01/cast-out-how-knitting-fell-into-a...

> Nor is it confined to the Left: neo-Nazi groups offer some of the clearest examples of purity spirals Seems like your own linked article says it's not just a leftist thing?

[flagged]

Re: How did American “wokeness” jump from elite schools to everyday life?

#174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have seen some concern about this issue in El Salvador. But "latinx"? Not once. It's unpronounceable in Spanish. You only see the letter X in indigenous place-names like Mexico or Oaxaca, and there it's pronounced kind of like a fricative version of our H, which can't work at the end of the word. I've heard native English speakers say it's pronounced "lah-TINKS", which is so obviously foreign it's painful. Two solu…

> But "latinx"? Not once. It's unpronounceable in Spanish. You only see the letter X in indigenous place-names like Mexico or Oaxaca, and there it's pronounced kind of like a fricative version of our H, which can't work at the end of the word. I've heard native English speakers say it's pronounced "lah-TINKS", which is so obviously foreign it's painful. That's pretty ironic. I never made that connection, though I onl…

> I've never actually heard it spoken

Tune into NPR for an hour and you're sure to hear it.

Re: How did American “wokeness” jump from elite schools to everyday life?

#175
post #162
post #149

This is one of those articles which kind of pretends to be neutral, but are still so oppinionated that I don't know if I ended up smarter or dumber after reading it :-/

I'm really unimpressed at the economist for publishing this, which is lazy partisan flame bait that I've flagged.

The Economist is great when you want to read stridently neoconservative propaganda masquerading as neutral, high-minded thinkpieces.

Re: How did American “wokeness” jump from elite schools to everyday life?

#176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To an extent left and right are asymmetrical---leftist groups tend to be groups organized around being leftist as their main purpose, while "rightist" groups (churches, police unions, gun enthusiasts) tend to be rightist incidentally . Neo Nazis feel like the exception that proves the rule.

[flagged]

When "woke" means not accepting reality, but down-vote others who i think are not right...contradicts the "woke"-thing a bit ;)

Re: How did American “wokeness” jump from elite schools to everyday life?

#177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To an extent left and right are asymmetrical---leftist groups tend to be groups organized around being leftist as their main purpose, while "rightist" groups (churches, police unions, gun enthusiasts) tend to be rightist incidentally . Neo Nazis feel like the exception that proves the rule.

[flagged]

Conservatives moved to the Republican party by the sixties. Look up Strom Thurman for example.

The Nazis had help from the left at their inception, but murdered them later to gain approval from finance and law enforcement grous to consolidate power. Look up the Night of the Long Knives. The Nazis that accomplished everything we're decidedly right-wing, despite recent attempts to reverse that impression.

Re: How did American “wokeness” jump from elite schools to everyday life?

#178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've nailed it. Analysis of social movements often doesn't take the intent of the ruling class into account nearly enough, and for good reason - part of their program is to deflect attention away from themselves and make it look organic.

> part of their program Who's they? Name names.

He already said -the ruling class. The specific names aren't irrelevant since they change regularly...but the dynamic (divide and conquer) doesn't appear to.

Re: How did American “wokeness” jump from elite schools to everyday life?

#179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article: "What links these developments is a loose constellation of ideas that is changing the way that mostly white, educated, left-leaning Americans view the world." It's moved from academic circles to "regular" middle-to-upper-middle class society for sure. You can argue that they're "elite" in some respects, but at the same time you're looking at an "elite" 30-40% of the population compared to the single…

' mostly white, educated, left-leaning Americans' is not the same as ' most white, educated, left-leaning Americans'

While you are semantically correct, you're ignoring the actual phenomenon that is being discussed.

Whether or not a literal majority of white, middle-class, left-leaning Americans believe in Critical Race Theory or The Patriarchy is irrelevant. 20 years ago it was only discussed in Academia, whereas now these theories hold a significant influence over many peoples' political, business and social lives.

Re: How did American “wokeness” jump from elite schools to everyday life?

#180
post #6

Fundamentally languages have been evolving in a reductive manner, which is why adding syllables to terms like in "Latino/Latina -> Latin-x -> Latinx+" won't last. People will quickly eschew these terms for things that are easier to pronounce. There's no malice in this - just a natural evolution of language towards efficiency. As such its an endless cycle: new stuff is introduced to everyday language then reduced to s…

Gendered nouns are kind of silly and antiquated when you think about it though, and many languages have a neuter gender too (e.g. German). The "X" suffix is an attempt by younger Spanish speakers to introduce a neuter gender to their native language. English doesn't have gendered nouns, but we do have gendered pronouns, which not all languages have. Chinese doesn't have gendered pronouns, which is why you'll often he…

> Today, young English speakers are trying to popularize "they" as an English neuter pronoun, and it's not too absurd: we already use "they" this way when the gender of the person is unknown.

I can understand why 'they' is chosen as a way to introduce neutrality of gender but it pains me that this also introduces of ambiguity of plurality. We _really_ need a gender-neutral third-person singular pronoun. We're lucky that our first and second-person pronouns and our plural pronouns by fluke of language evolution just happen to already be gender neutral. It's just this last one -- third-person singular -- that is causing all this discussion, political fights, and newspaper column inches. It seems absurd to me when we could just call each other ze/zim (or whatever, the actual word doesn't really matter) and call it a day. If it turns out that the only way we can shut up about pronouns is to sacrifice 'they', then I guess that's an acceptable loss. But it does feel like all we need is a tiny tweak of the language to iron out this wrinkle by introducing something new (or taking one from another language, if that's more palatable).

Post reply on HN