zlacker

>>crbela+(OP)
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.

>>justin+pl1
> This 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. What does it mean now? I've often been asked to define both wokeness and political correctness by people who think they're meaningless labels, so I will. They both have the same definition:

    An aggressively performative focus on social justice. 

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

>>UltraS+fu1
It bothers me so much that Paul Graham people thinks it's performative. He can't imagine anyone actually, sincerely holding those beliefs, because he doesn't hold them himself. If someone is trying to modify their beliefs and then their behaviour, say, by mild self-censorship, he's got a list of insults ready for that person trying to better themselves: prig, politically correct, woke.

It's not performative. We really do believe that there are injustices and that if we can begin by changing the language, we can change the behaviour.

Just because Paul Graham can't imagine himself sincerely believing in self improvement followed by social improvement doesn't mean we don't believe it in ourselves.

>>jordig+rA1
You can hold the beliefs without being "performative"

A perfect example is when gay marriage was illegal and some straight people loudly announced that they wouldn't get married until gay people could.

OK. Your motives are good but how exactly is this going to help legalize gay marriage? And why did the world need to know about it?

>>UltraS+WA1
While your example is interesting, I would at least give those people some credit for taking the action they could (even if it is largely pointless as you said).

I think a better analogy is people who would criticize other heterosexual couples for getting married when homosexual couples could not, as it is both pointless and needlessly antagonistic.