zlacker

>>crbela+(OP)
His accounting for what attracts people to wokeness is incomplete. Certainly there are prigs in the mix, but for most, I think it's that wokeness, as he defines it, is often tightly coupled with good things, like sexual harassment being taken more seriously. The challenge, then, is how we can do things like take sexual harassment more seriously without also folding that effort into an ideology with vague expansive definitions that lend themselves to actual prigs.

>>krosae+fA
> wokeness, as he defines it, is often tightly coupled with good things, like sexual harassment being taken more seriously.

I'm not sure that's true. Wokeness doesn't focus on actual harassment; it focuses on accusations of harassment, with a definition of "harassment" that is highly subjective and doesn't necessarily correlate very well with actual harassment.

> how we can do things like take sexual harassment more seriously

The problem is not that we need to take, for example, sexual harassment "more seriously". The problem is how to reduce how often actual sexual harassment happens. "Taking it more seriously" is a very vague and ineffective way to do that.

>>pdonis+pE
> The problem is how to reduce how often actual sexual harassment happens. "Taking it more seriously" is a very vague and ineffective way to do that.

Taking it seriously is a prerequisite for any effective mechanism for reducing sexual harassment.

>>bryanl+La1
I'm not so sure. See my response to triceratops.