Live data from Hacker News

The Origins of Wokeness

paulgraham.com

421–430 of 1001 posts

Re: The Origins of Wokeness

#421
Spending too much time in the richest, most tolerant counties in the country can make you forget that we still have colleges that won't admit gay students, or that many people still don't believe in interracial marriage.

Yes it's a teeny tiny little bit of a shame that a college president had to step down for raising a fair academic question. It is not half as important as when a cop shoots a black person dead for dating with a white girl.

Re: The Origins of Wokeness

#423
Wow, Paul Graham just kinda set the standard for cognitive dissonance on HN. In short, sins of elision, omission, and exaggeration in this post and elsewhere in his absurdly entitled world make it clear that he is himself the prig here.

Re: The Origins of Wokeness

#424

If anything, this is a useful looking glass into the minds of people who love to complain about language policing and think "censorship" is our biggest social problem.

Well, with the recent news that Facebook censored vaccine side effects by order of the government, I think we shouldn't underestimate censorship.

Re: The Origins of Wokeness

#426
> In other words, it's people being prigs about social justice. And that's the real problem — the performativeness, not the social justice.

No, in almost every usage I've seen it's people objecting to the actual social justice. There is a massive wave of reaction breaking right now. To posit that it's just (or mostly) about some annoying attitudes is absurd. This kind of strength of feeling you can only get from people feeling actually threatened – which is pretty pathetic when you pick out what the actual policies and demands of the accused "woke" are – very mild progressiveness. A desire to go a little way to redress the balance. It's a lot less than I'd favour!

Re: The Origins of Wokeness

#427
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…

The book "American Nations", whose basic idea is that the US + Canada is composed of 12 cultural "nations", also observes that the Puritans were rather intolerant. The Puritan culture influenced what he calls "Yankeedom" (New England west to Minnesota) and the "Left Coast", which was settled by Yankee shipping. My impression is that these two areas are the most "woke"; it seems that Puritan intolerance casts a long s…

Right: it's worth noting the Puritans departed England in part because they were, basically, zealous pains in the butt who didn't get along well with contemporary English society.

Re: The Origins of Wokeness

#428
Really disappointing article, full of disingenuousness and strawmen and a few interesting points as well. For the record, while I'm on the progressive side of things, I certainly do not agree with all of the various viewpoints and practices ascribed to "wokeism."

He seems close to misunderstanding a pivotal thing, but glosses over it:

    [Priggish] was not the original meaning of woke, 
    but it's rarely used in the original sense now. 
    Now the pejorative sense is the dominant one.
He then moves on to spend hundreds of words talking about why wokeness is bad, never really recognizing that for most of its relatively short lifespan the modern incarnation of "woke" has been defined and used almost exclusively by conservatives as sort of an amorphous blanket term for "various progressive ideas they dislike" and is not useful as a basis for any discussion or essay.

    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.
This is a glaringly bad false dichotomy. Apparently we can talk about good things or do good things, but not both?

I mean, I have certainly done both. There really isn't a conflict there.

Another, similar false dichotomy:

    The danger of these rules was not just that 
    they created land mines for the unwary, but that 
    their elaborateness made them an effective 
    substitute for virtue.
We can't have rules and virtue?

It's the kind of sentence that sounds good if you don't think about it -- because of course doing good things is better than simply making rules -- but this is such an amateurish and false dichotomy.

This is about as sensical as saying that we shouldn't have code review, or coding standards, we should just focus on writing code in our own personal little vision of what good code is. Yes we should write "good code" on an individual basis, and yes we should (as a team working on a project together) have standards and reviews. If a particular team member is contributing zero code and doing nothing but toxic reviews, sure, that is a problem but that is a problem with that individual and not some kind of inherent paradox.

Some things can only be effectively tackled with both individual effort and community/systemic effort. If you feel that things like racism, sexism, etc do not fall into that category... well, I strongly disagree, but I wish people would simply say that directly than ranting and raving about this bogeyman of modern "wokeness" that is -- and I cannot stress this enough -- a mindbendingly nonspecific term. Talk ideals and policies.

Re: The Origins of Wokeness

#430
post #38

> Imagine having to explain to a well-meaning visitor from another planet why using the phrase "people of color" is considered particularly enlightened, but saying "colored people" gets you fired. [...] There are no underlying principles. To understand much of our language, Gnorts would have to already be aware that our words and symbols gain meaning from how they're used, and you couldn't, for instance, determine th…

they’re not negroes, they’re colored they’re not colored, they’re African-American they’re not African-American, they’re black they’re not black, they’re Black they’re not Black, they’re People of Color they’re not People of Color, they’re BIPOC I wonder what the next twist of the pretzel will look like

I think we should respect someone's preferred language for their identity. It's not that hard.
Post reply on HN