zlacker

[return to "The Origins of Wokeness"]
1. wrs+0c1[view] [source] 2025-01-13 18:39:03
>>crbela+(OP)
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.
◧◩
2. haswel+hh1[view] [source] 2025-01-13 19:02:10
>>wrs+0c1
For sake of argument, what if the answer truly is "do it quietly"?

What if it's most effective to live your life to the best of your ability without prejudice, and instead of preaching about what people should do, you just do what it is that you believe to be right?

I grew up in (and left behind) conservative evangelical christian circles, and the thing that always made me most uncomfortable with "wokeness" is how much it often resembles those holier-than-though people I grew up around.

It's not that I disagree with the underlying ideas behind "woke" positions as much as it is the behavior of the people who want to move those ideas forward.

Whether it's overly pious evangelical christians or "very woke" people, I think there's an underlying belief that transcends particular points of view that there's a particular way people must conduct themselves and that using various tactics ranging from moralizing to public shaming are tactics that are effective.

Except I don't think these tactics are effective at all, and while it may be unsatisfying, "try to be the best example you can be" seems far more helpful than what often emerges when people feel they're morally justified.

◧◩◪
3. wrs+yB1[view] [source] 2025-01-13 20:16:36
>>haswel+hh1
There is a particular way people should conduct themselves. For example, they shouldn’t murder other people, damage public property, or systematically discriminate against other people based on gender or “race”. We aren’t “quiet” about the first two.
◧◩◪◨
4. haswel+ZJ1[view] [source] 2025-01-13 20:47:20
>>wrs+yB1
The trouble is that many of the issues now under the "woke" umbrella are not nearly as simple/obvious as the examples you've chosen.

To raise just one example: for most people, terms like "whitelist" and "blacklist" held no racist connotations. When they uttered those words, they felt no animus towards another person or race. If they were asked to speculate why those words exist or how they originated, there's a good chance they'd point out that "light" and "dark" have longstanding associations often evoking religious imagery of good vs evil. And indeed, if you investigate the history of these words, they don't seem to have a problematic racial history (which can't be said for all words).

But due to the potential for racial connotations, replacing these words was part of a widespread campaign. Resisting the removal of these words would result in someone being labeled a racist/bigot etc.

Personally, I've chosen to remove those words from my vocabulary because they offend some people in neutral settings and it's not a big deal to say "allowlist/denylist". But I'm not taking it upon myself to scold other people for not doing the same thing. On the other hand, if someone started using the n word, I wouldn't be quiet about it.

My general point was that acting as if all "woke" issues rise to the level of murder, property rights or racial discrimination is exactly the problem. People stop taking the "you must live this particular way" people seriously when the issues up for discussion are complex and not obvious.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. wrs+fu2[view] [source] 2025-01-14 00:45:54
>>haswel+ZJ1
Yes, I agree, when it gets to the level of "that made someone vaguely uncomfortable" rather than "that ruined someone's entire life", it no longer qualifies. So, how do you effectively fight the latter without ending up fighting about the former? "Working quietly" doesn't seem like a good answer. This is an unsolved problem that PG seemingly isn't much interested in solving; he's more interested in how people talk about it.
[go to top]