The Origins of Wokeness • Hacker News Board

Re: The Origins of Wokeness

#211

Post by pkkkzip » Mon, Jan 13, 2025, 7:20 PM UTC

camcaine wrote: post #139

[flagged]

i dont think the ppl expressing their outrage here realize the screenshot of their content is being amplified and shared on other platforms not because they agree with it but purely for comedy.

so steadfast is their view point as the only possible view that they cant imagine/realize many of us are laughing at them.

coupled with the discoverability of usernames connected to their other real world profiles and the virality of their comic, it probably is unwise to be labelled far-left or 'woke' in professional circles going forward.

Re: The Origins of Wokeness

#212

Post by jiriknesl » Mon, Jan 13, 2025, 7:20 PM UTC

jandrese wrote: post #102

rhelz wrote: post #5

From the article: "Twitter, which was arguably the hub of wokeness, was bought by Elon Musk in order to neutralize it, and he seems to have succeeded — and not, incidentally, by censoring left-wing users the way Twitter used to censor right-wing ones, but without censoring either. [14]" Then follow to the footnote: "[14] Elon did something else that tilted Twitter rightward though: he gave more visibility to paying u…

> From the article: "Twitter, which was arguably the hub of wokeness, was bought by Elon Musk in order to neutralize it, and he seems to have succeeded — and not, incidentally, by censoring left-wing users the way Twitter used to censor right-wing ones, but without censoring either. [14]" As has been demonstrated time and time again, especially on the Internet, unmoderated discussion boards do not scale. Trolls can n…

Twitter is not unmoderated.

I don't know how many people I muted, banned, or how many times I clicked that I don't want to see something. Over time, Twitter gets better.

This being said, I prefer doing my moderation myself instead of having somebody I extremely disagree with (former Twitter employees) to do this for me.

Re: The Origins of Wokeness

#213

Post by khazhoux » Mon, Jan 13, 2025, 7:20 PM UTC

Actually, the origin of “wokeness”, the term, is right-leaning bigots who need to discount any grievance by any group of people who claim they might just possibly be suffering some systemic disadvantages in this country.

Re: The Origins of Wokeness

#214

Post by mlsu » Mon, Jan 13, 2025, 7:21 PM UTC

> What does it mean now? ...

> An aggressively performative focus on social justice.

> In other words, it's people being prigs about social justice. And that's the real problem — the performativeness, not the social justice.

Oh, great! Yeah, I think we should focus on effectively furthering social justice. Can't wait for the rest of the article.

...

If you, like me, were waiting for PG to outline some methods for furthering social justice that are effective and not performative in the rest of this article, I have bad news for you. It seems that he has given no thought to it at all!

Re: The Origins of Wokeness

#215

Post by diggan » Mon, Jan 13, 2025, 7:21 PM UTC

_uhtu wrote: post #183

[flagged]

Could you share the parts that have been "ripped" or "identical" from this book you're talking about? Would be very interesting if true, otherwise kind of despicable to make those claims without any sort of proof whatsoever.

Re: The Origins of Wokeness

#216

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jan 13, 2025, 7:22 PM UTC

grahamj wrote: post #181

yapyap wrote: post #99

I think the word “woke” means very different things to some people. As an example I think people from the American political left to somewhere(?) in the middle see it as what it has been introduced as, that being looking past the status quo and instead looking at your own values, i.e. the morality of homelessness and not having a disdain for them but empathy for them instead. and then on the other side it feels like…

> i.e. the morality of homelessness and not having a disdain for them but empathy for them instead. > people on the American political right see it as what this website describes it as “ A self-righteously moralistic person who behaves as if superior to others.” I think those are just two perspectives on the same situation. “wokeness” is realizing we should be treating people better and “anti-wokness” is people feeli…

[deleted]

Re: The Origins of Wokeness

#217

Post by TimTheTinker » Mon, Jan 13, 2025, 7:23 PM UTC

camcaine wrote: post #139

[flagged]

[flagged]

Re: The Origins of Wokeness

#218

Post by Molitor5901 » Mon, Jan 13, 2025, 7:23 PM UTC

yapyap wrote: post #99

I think the word “woke” means very different things to some people. As an example I think people from the American political left to somewhere(?) in the middle see it as what it has been introduced as, that being looking past the status quo and instead looking at your own values, i.e. the morality of homelessness and not having a disdain for them but empathy for them instead. and then on the other side it feels like…

I think it's much simpler than that. Woke is power, it's a moral position that can be used like a club to force others into a specific line of thinking. While it's basic mission of recognizing discrimination, etc. around us, it morphed into a political and societal weapon to force people and institutions to do certain things, like establishing DEI offices.

Re: The Origins of Wokeness

#219

Post by alganet » Mon, Jan 13, 2025, 7:23 PM UTC

Just call it "The International Woke" already. It's what this is getting at, isn't it?

Re: The Origins of Wokeness

#220

Post by elsonrodriguez » Mon, Jan 13, 2025, 7:23 PM UTC

>Racism, for example, is a genuine problem. Not a problem on the scale that the woke believe it to be, but a genuine one. I don't think any reasonable person would deny that. The problem with political correctness was not that it focused on marginalized groups, but the shallow, aggressive way in which it did so. Instead of going out into the world and quietly helping members of marginalized groups, the politically correct focused on getting people in trouble for using the wrong words to talk about them.

Following this logic, the Emancipation Proclamation was "problematic" because the "correct" thing to do is free slaves quietly via the underground railroad, as we wouldn't want to get slave owners in trouble.

This is fundamentally an argument against systemic change, as "getting people in trouble" is both core to the genesis and the enforcement of things like the Civil Rights act.

Attacking "wokeness" with this argument is deeply problematic, and extremely tone deaf in the wake of the Meta moderation leaks, wherein their internal documents highlight that the new moderation changes allow statements like "Immigrants are grubby, filthy pieces of shit.”