Live data from Hacker News

The Origins of Wokeness

paulgraham.com

81–90 of 1001 posts

Re: The Origins of Wokeness

#81
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…

fr Nathaniel Hawthorne is immensely relevant in the present day

Re: The Origins of Wokeness

#82
Certainly this essay is, mostly, “not wrong”. But I was hoping PG might use his powerful brain and hundreds of words to explain how one should combat structural racism and sexism without the unfortunate side effect of “wokeness”. As far as I can see, he just recommended you do it “quietly”. Disappointing.

Re: The Origins of Wokeness

#84
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…

The antiwoke crusaders are just as intent on moralizing and language policing as the worst of their opponents, and in places like Florida they're actively implementing limitations on speech and academic inquiry. To the extent that Graham and his fellow travelers in tech believe in freedom of expression, they've picked dangerous allies.

Re: The Origins of Wokeness

#87
post #17

[flagged]

Can you please make your substantive points without resorting to the flamewar style? Your comments are standing out as more flamey than anyone else's that I've seen, so far, in the thread.

In particular, it would be good if you would note and follow the following site guidelines:

"Don't be snarky."

"When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. 'That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

Your views are welcome, but we need you to express them in the intended spirit of the forum. The same, of course, is true for anyone with opposing views.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

Re: The Origins of Wokeness

#89

[flagged]

Paul Graham was never smart. He was always just a successful guy whom lots of naive student mistook for a guru on account of his success. That happens a lot.

Young people in need of guidance would do well to read the classics and disregard everyone with a pulse.

Re: The Origins of Wokeness

#90
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.

Post reply on HN