Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Origins of Wokeness

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 1001 posts

Re: The Origins of Wokeness

#291

Post by graypegg »

650REDHAIR wrote: post #190

Are there viable alternatives to HN? I'm pretty sick of PG and Altman's influence. They aren't good people.

Ycombinator is of course, involved to some extent with the creation of HN. So I get it. Tech leaders cultism sort of infests the space.

But I do tend to find HN pretty broad in topics. I do think they end up on here because they’re good at making news for themselves (not a compliment) and the sort of people posting on here, are posting tech news. I don’t see ending up on HN’s front page as any indicator of goodness, but more so, it’s at least something people are talking about and sparks some discussion, goodness-neutral on the specific topic at hand.

dang is really good at his job!

That said, I really like mastodon! Obviously it’s a different sort of platform, but you can get a similar but less-tech-thought-leader-centric experience with some light curation. (And participation by yourself!)

Re: The Origins of Wokeness

#292

Post by dang »

narag wrote: post #90
Leary wrote: post #59

I think there’s a fascinating throughline from older Christian moral enforcement to what the essay calls “wokeness.” Historically, a lot of Christian movements had the same impulse to legislate language and behaviors—just grounded in sin rather than privilege. For instance, the 19th-century American Puritans famously policed each other’s speech and actions because the stakes were framed as eternal salvation versus da…

Christians are so new. I wonder why Pharisees aren't mentioned more often when bringing in this topic. Actually, "pharisaical" is the dictionary definition for this kind of hypocrisy.

Probably because this topic is American and it's the history of American Christianity that's being referenced.

Re: The Origins of Wokeness

#293

Post by mullingitover »

justinrstout wrote: post #200

This article never takes up the cause of the minorities who are being harassed and killed on a daily basis, but spends a lot of time whining about having to show even a modicum of empathy by using more inclusive language. For this reason it reeks of self-centered willful ignorance.

I feel like it's important to enter this part of the cycle where the absolute worst people feel comfortable entering their most heinous takes into the permanent internet record under the delusion that the social pressure to be a good person has been defeated forever.

This is effectively putting the popcorn into the popper, but it won't be served until about ten years from now.

Re: The Origins of Wokeness

#294

Post by lesuorac »

justinrstout wrote: post #200

This article never takes up the cause of the minorities who are being harassed and killed on a daily basis, but spends a lot of time whining about having to show even a modicum of empathy by using more inclusive language. For this reason it reeks of self-centered willful ignorance.

That's the point.

Spending time teaching people to use people of color instead of black is just performant. Actually firing a recruiter that immediately throws any black resume into the trash is real change.

Re: The Origins of Wokeness

#295

Post by andrewflnr »

thegrim33 wrote: post #166
Leary wrote: post #59

I think there’s a fascinating throughline from older Christian moral enforcement to what the essay calls “wokeness.” Historically, a lot of Christian movements had the same impulse to legislate language and behaviors—just grounded in sin rather than privilege. For instance, the 19th-century American Puritans famously policed each other’s speech and actions because the stakes were framed as eternal salvation versus da…

[flagged]

Not exactly. The article doesn't try to draw a causative link between Christianity in particular to "wokeness".

Re: The Origins of Wokeness

#296

Post by Bearstrike »

elsonrodriguez wrote: post #220

>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 co…

>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.

Present-day racism and slavery are in completely different neighborhoods of magnitude; to the extent that the comparison borders on false equivalency.

>...the new moderation changes allow statements like "Immigrants are grubby, filthy pieces of shit."

If a platform is attempting to operate within the ethos/spirit of free speech, you 'should' be allowed to make such statements on the platform. The root of the argument is the disagreement on whether and where one should be "allowed" to say those things.

Saying it's problematic is not a trump card (no pun intended). If you can demonstrate how allowing people to say offensive/harmful things (excluding established limits on free speech regarding safety) is inconsistent with free speech, then you're adding something to the discussion. Anything else is likely a disagreement on utility of free speech vs. civility; a place where folks can agree to disagree.

Re: The Origins of Wokeness

#297

Post by UncleOxidant »

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…

You're right. It's really lazy to use the term at this point as there isn't a shared meaning assigned to it. It's mostly used as a pejorative by the right at this point, but it's original meaning was very different and indicated a positive attribute. Whenever I'm in a conversation with someone who uses the word, I stop them and ask them to define what they're talking about. Usually they end up with something vague that boils down to "stuff I don't like".

Re: The Origins of Wokeness

#298

Post by glitchc »

kardianos wrote: post #266
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…

Woke is critical construcivism. The belief consists of two parts: 1. That truth is socially constructed thus when we see bad things, it means society created these bad things. 2. In order to determine what parts of society to cut-out to make society better, so bad things stop happening, use a critical theory to determine who should be removed from society so it can be more equitable (usually the stand in for good. Wo…

This is where wokeism falls apart as an ideology: It is outcome driven instead of opportunity driven. Equality becomes the goal regardless of motivation, ambition or merit. Why would the best, or more broadly anyone better than average, participate in such a society? What's their incentive?

When you define woke this way, you ultimately admit that wokeism is just a veneer of identity politics layered over good old-fashioned communism. The problem with communism is that it sounds great, but doesn't work. How many times must it fail before people realize that?

Re: The Origins of Wokeness

#299

Post by haswell »

cmdli wrote: post #210
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…

“Woke”, for the most part, is a boogeyman that the conservative right uses as a summary label for various political movements on the left. Basically nobody on the left talks about “woke” except for perhaps a period of six months back in 2017. Many political groups do this: they identify some aspect of the opposition, preferably one that is easy to ridicule, and then repeat those accusations ad-nauseum. The complaints…

> Basically nobody on the left talks about “woke” except for perhaps a period of six months back in 2017.

Can't really agree. Especially in the wake of the 2024 election, there's been quite a bit of discussion about wokeness on the left.

The trouble is that many people have decided that if you discuss "wokeness" and especially if you have a problem with some element of it, that means you're no longer on "the left".

Personally, I think the issue is mostly about behavior, and not specific ideas. "Let's all make an effort to move culture in a better direction" became "If you don't wholly endorse these specific changes we've decided are necessary, that makes you a bigot, you're not a true progressive, etc.".

When a lot of this was heating up during the pandemic, I encountered two very different kinds of people.

1. Those who generally agreed with efforts to improve the status quo and did what they could to help (started displaying their pronouns, tried to eliminate language that had deeply racist connotations, etc)

2. Those who would actively judge/shame/label you if you weren't 100% up to speed on every hot-button issue and hadn't fully implemented the desired changes

It's that 2nd group that tends to be the target of "anti-woke" sentiment, and that 2nd group tended to be extremely noisy.

> not because there actually exists a problem with wokeness but to try to gain political and social status with their political group

The other issue that I see repeatedly is a group of people insisting that "wokeness" doesn't exist or that there isn't a toxic form of it currently in the culture. I think acknowledging the existence of bad faith actors and "morality police" would do more for advancing the underlying ideas often labeled "woke" than trying to focus on the fakeness of the problem.

Maybe that group is made up of squeaky wheels, but their existence is used to justify the "anti-woke" sentiment that many people push.

For me, this boils down to a tactics issue where people are behaving badly and distracting from real issues - often issues those same people claim to care about.

Re: The Origins of Wokeness

#300

Post by bugglebeetle »

cmdli wrote: post #210
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…

“Woke”, for the most part, is a boogeyman that the conservative right uses as a summary label for various political movements on the left. Basically nobody on the left talks about “woke” except for perhaps a period of six months back in 2017. Many political groups do this: they identify some aspect of the opposition, preferably one that is easy to ridicule, and then repeat those accusations ad-nauseum. The complaints…

> By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.
Post reply on HN