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

531–540 of 1001 posts

Re: The Origins of Wokeness

#531

Post by ceejayoz »

JFingleton wrote: post #520
runlevel1 wrote: post #501

> The danger of these rules was not just that they created land mines for the unwary In real life, these "land mines" don't usually explode unless people think you're stepping on it intentionally. For instance, every time I've accidentally used the wrong pronoun for someone, I've gotten a polite correction, I make a mental note, and everyone moves on. It's just not a big deal. With a large enough audience, there will…

[flagged]

If you go to work and deliberately call "Bob" by the wrong name "Joe" all the time, and it upsets them and they ask you to stop, you'll get fired eventually if you continue.

Re: The Origins of Wokeness

#532

Post by fzeroracer »

JFingleton wrote: post #520
runlevel1 wrote: post #501

> The danger of these rules was not just that they created land mines for the unwary In real life, these "land mines" don't usually explode unless people think you're stepping on it intentionally. For instance, every time I've accidentally used the wrong pronoun for someone, I've gotten a polite correction, I make a mental note, and everyone moves on. It's just not a big deal. With a large enough audience, there will…

[flagged]

If someone is named Jimmy and you keep referring to him as Jimbo despite them politely asking you not to, what do you think will happen?

Re: The Origins of Wokeness

#533

Post by heresie-dabord »

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…

> “Woke”, for the most part, is a boogeyman that the conservative right uses

Yes, it is an ingenious sort of strawman.

In its prior usage, to be "woke" meant to be informed, alert, and to resist being bullied or easily duped into relinquishing one's rights to object, to defend oneself, and to dissent.

In this sense -- I note with some irony -- Jordan Peterson was "woke" when he would not allow his students to coerce him into using terms of address that he rejected.

Now the usage on the "Right" in US politics in particular uses "woke" to mean hypocritical or superficial assertions, positions, and policies that serve a dubious objective or prove to have no foundation in facts -- especially if these are the opponents' views.

Flinging these accusations of hypocrisy and delusional policy-making has become more important than defending democracy itself. Herein lies the masterstroke of the messaging. Using the term "woke" to attack supposedly "woke" opponents has become a memetic (viral) behaviour that has completely devoured political and public discourse.

Re: The Origins of Wokeness

#534

Post by throw101010qwe »

runlevel1 wrote: post #501

> The danger of these rules was not just that they created land mines for the unwary In real life, these "land mines" don't usually explode unless people think you're stepping on it intentionally. For instance, every time I've accidentally used the wrong pronoun for someone, I've gotten a polite correction, I make a mental note, and everyone moves on. It's just not a big deal. With a large enough audience, there will…

Easier said than done. Intent does not matter. The vocal minority will instantly peg you a racist and those whispers will continue to persist. I have personally been through it. Unfortunately we exist in a world now where the vocal left and right pollute the airwaves.

Re: The Origins of Wokeness

#535

Post by jasonlotito »

An incredibly ignorant article from someone who clearly has no concept or understanding of the topic being discussed. He defines wokeness from the perspective of those who are anti-woke. Remember, Elden Ring is a woke video game.

"Whenever anyone tries to ban saying something that we'd previously been able to say, our initial assumption should be that they're wrong."

No one was prevented from saying anything. People just decided they didn't need to listen to it.

The reality is, PG is just writing this now because a new administration is coming in, and he wants to play nice with a felon. No morals to stand on, only money. Ethics be damned, I'll sell my soul and kill the children for a dollar. Sad state of affairs.

Re: The Origins of Wokeness

#536

Post by shadowgovt »

JFingleton wrote: post #520
runlevel1 wrote: post #501

> The danger of these rules was not just that they created land mines for the unwary In real life, these "land mines" don't usually explode unless people think you're stepping on it intentionally. For instance, every time I've accidentally used the wrong pronoun for someone, I've gotten a polite correction, I make a mental note, and everyone moves on. It's just not a big deal. With a large enough audience, there will…

[flagged]

I think people may disagree on what "within reason" means. There are some red lines established by Title VII that cause "just asking questions" to cross into "hostile work environment." Is it reasonable to keep asking those questions?

Reasonable people can disagree on that question, but the law will protect a company that fires an individual for crossing that line while the rest of society is arguing over where the line should be. That's just how law works in general.

Re: The Origins of Wokeness

#537

Post by Jensson »

runlevel1 wrote: post #501

> The danger of these rules was not just that they created land mines for the unwary In real life, these "land mines" don't usually explode unless people think you're stepping on it intentionally. For instance, every time I've accidentally used the wrong pronoun for someone, I've gotten a polite correction, I make a mental note, and everyone moves on. It's just not a big deal. With a large enough audience, there will…

> But if you know you've done it innocently, then you can just ignore them and move on.

For sensitive people that isn't really an option, it just causes endless stress.

Re: The Origins of Wokeness

#539

Post by diggan »

JFingleton wrote: post #520
runlevel1 wrote: post #501

> The danger of these rules was not just that they created land mines for the unwary In real life, these "land mines" don't usually explode unless people think you're stepping on it intentionally. For instance, every time I've accidentally used the wrong pronoun for someone, I've gotten a polite correction, I make a mental note, and everyone moves on. It's just not a big deal. With a large enough audience, there will…

[flagged]

> Isn't that the issue though? I healthy society should be able to challenge, object and argue (within reason), without losing jobs or being exiled?

When you're in parliamentary/house sessions (or whatever your democracy/society/state has), sure, argue and object to everything. There you have what Americans are so crazy about, "Freedom of Speech" and all that.

But outside of that, in private life, most people would find you very cumbersome to deal with if you challenge, object or argue with things that people state about themselves. If I say I'm 32 years old and you try to argue against me, I'll eventually just ignore and shun you, because who has the time to deal with such inconsequential stuff?

Re: The Origins of Wokeness

#540

Post by fzeroracer »

zer8k wrote: post #529
runlevel1 wrote: post #501

> The danger of these rules was not just that they created land mines for the unwary In real life, these "land mines" don't usually explode unless people think you're stepping on it intentionally. For instance, every time I've accidentally used the wrong pronoun for someone, I've gotten a polite correction, I make a mental note, and everyone moves on. It's just not a big deal. With a large enough audience, there will…

[flagged]

> This type of policing is another iteration of doublespeak that we were warned about in 1984. Policing the language polices thoughts. It harms communication effectiveness. It makes it harder.

Jesus, it's really not that hard. I work full remote and I just ask people what they prefer. I'm not in office and a lot of people aren't on camera and it's a bad idea to generally assume shit based on their name anyways. If I forget I apologize and we move on.

I have literally never encountered any issues in my long career of working with people because I don't feel a need to fill my head with hot air and make a big deal about it.

Post reply on HN