33 ms·

It's just a shift from older, less flexible values like family, church etc to the more open minded approach, "do as you like". Nothing wrong with people having

• concordDance 5y ago
  Modern wokism is actually defined by illiberalism. It's very much about what you are not allowed to do. Not dressing like X, not using Y things, not saying Z, not getting a place at uni or a job due to having the wrong skin color, etc.
  • mkr-hn 5y ago
    Some of those Xes, Ys, and Zs are actually good points and it's good the people who were talking about it all along have a voice now. Just because some people, usually not those actually affected, go overboard or talk over the people they're trying to help doesn't invalidate the concerns. It's actually good that, now, I understand the big ol generic "Indian" with a war bonnet painted in the school gym when I was a kid was a misrepresentation and misuse of sacred, hard-earned symbols. It's good that I know whose land those pipelines cut across now. It's good that I understand spirit animals are a sacred, private thing, not something to bandy about or declare for every fleeting interest on Twitter. It's good that I know naming certain evils is kind of a jerk move to do in a crowd of people who believe in them.
    • concordDance 5y ago
      Goodness is orthogonal to liberalism. Something can be illiberal but good or Liberal but bad.
    • njharman 5y ago
      I, nor you, have an obligation to honor or respect anyone's beliefs. We have the limited rights to dismiss, criticize, adopt, etc any belief/creed/etc. The limits are prohibiting or restricting others, including original inventors of belief , from doing same except in support of 2nd limitation. Which is, doing harm. Many want that to be absolute no harm. I strongly disagree that "hurt feelings" and "uncomfortableness" are worthy levels of harm. Society continues to debate this.
      • mkr-hn 5y ago
        If people had respected the right of people to practice and believe as they wish, there would be no problem, but now their cultures are in tatters after centuries of violence and forced reeducation, and they're trying to protect what's left. The current situation is the result of people not believing what you said, in the past or present. You speak in abstract terms of rights and privileges. This is the actual, real situation. There are real human consequences to treating endangered indigenous cultures as something to repackage and transform for the benefit of people outside those cultures. Keep that in mind as you debate abstract ideas with "society," whatever that is.
    • kortilla 5y ago
      You say those things are “good”, but you offer no evidence of why. How does chastising people for having a “spirit animal” on Twitter help the indigenous people?
      • mkr-hn 5y ago
        No one said anything about chastising people on Twitter except you.
        • kortilla 5y ago
          You’re literally chastising here: > It's good that I understand spirit animals are a sacred, private thing, not something to bandy about or declare for every fleeting interest on Twitter.
• FinanceAnon 5y ago
  Part of me doubts that it's a permanent shift. There was a hippie movement in the 60s and 70s in the US, but conservatives are still going strong 50 years later.
  • yawaworht1978 5y ago
    I think it's permanent, it will just change shape and be less radical. The hippies are still a bit hippies deep down inside, and their main objective has been achieved. People know they can be hippies and it will be fine. I am more unsure as to why subcultures have been ostracized in the first place if they do no harm to others. When I lived in a huge city for the first time, i realized how unimportant all that was, I got to speak to all kinds of people, name any -ism, I have spoken to them, and they have all been nice folks.
    • elzbardico 5y ago
      Let's not forget that most Jack-Welch yuppie downsizing acolytes were hippies in a former life. Kind of scary when you think about it.
      • refurb 5y ago
        Of course. Steve Jobs dropped acid, went to India and didn’t bath. He also stole ideas from others, screamed at people who disagreed and drove his employees like slaves and became a billionaire.
• FiberBundle 5y ago
  Some, even most, of the goals of that movement are commendable, with the exception of the more idealistic goals such as equality of outcome. What I find worrying, however, are the tactics that are used to accomplish those goals. I find it hard to understand how people do not see how discriminating against other people because of their views is not the right approach to solve discrimination.
  • yawaworht1978 5y ago
    The tactics were probably forged in the underground while it was not wise to speak openly about it, always with the law or society breathing down their necks, so I am not surprised the tactics aren't the cleanest or most innocent. Once this gets enough traction, it might get plenty of followers. If my kid would come home with half green, half pink hair, we would have to sit down and find the origin for that, I would not be very amused. But same applies if my kids would bully other kids for any reason.
    • refenestrator 5y ago
      The article covers this, the ideology was forged inside elite academic departments with names ending in 'studies'. They weren't some persecuted underground, they were cushy academics who got given sinecures in the aftermath of the 60s protests.
  • jasonlotito 5y ago
    What would you suggest that wasn’t tried before? Conversations, education, peaceful protests, etc. None worked as well as this. If someone is punching you in the face every single day, and nothing you try that’s non violent works, but suddenly you get results when you push back, wouldn’t you employ that method? Sure, it hurts the person punching you, but they were punching you.
    • yawaworht1978 5y ago
      I would agree with that. You only slip and evade so many punches before you strike back. Many of these things took a lot of effort. Examples were suffrage in Switzerland, only approved in 1971(by male voters). Sounds crazy, the UK suffragettes got their way between WW1 and WW2, it's pretty shameful that Some anti homosexuality laws have been passed after that. The same conservative outlets who point fingers at the Talibans for killing homosexuals have been on the anti gay train when it was convenient. The Dutch simplified the most useful rule in the 17th century: "live and let live", it was codified into (maritime) law. We have a system that cannot accommodate all views and opinions, but if we gonna call it democracy, at least the minorities should not be discriminated on. But yeah, a bullies freedom of speech and someone with green hair crossing paths will cause some potential friction. If not right there on the spot, people will vent online. Case in point, there's this guy Nick Szabo , intelligent person, but damn his Twitter feed and contributions make you wonder if he dresses up as a klansman in the nights.
• UK-Al05 5y ago
  'Woke' is illiberal. A lot of the ideas behind it attack liberalism as they see at enabling the status quo as opposed to action for change. Edit: Why are people down voting me? Critical theories are very open about their critique of liberalism and rationality? And how they've led to lack of change. It's not some weird conspiracy. I personally think it's not worth it to abandon liberal ideas. As suddenly you validate a lot of illiberal politics. It allows for authoritarianism. I can't stand inconsistencies.
  • Applejinx 5y ago
    People are downvoting you because they don't trust that your argument is in good faith. It's a foundational argument for manipulatively moving goalposts, and sketchy as far as redefining commonly accepted words. No, 'woke' and 'liberal' don't make sense to paint as opposite ideologies, much less set up straw-men for trying to plant the idea that 'woke is abandoning liberal ideas, you wouldn't do THAT, would you?' And that is why you're earning downvotes :) This is honestly a great HN thread for wilfully burning karma in fires of brigading. I know my own interaction with it, is in the full knowledge that if I do correctly identify and explore ideas, I'll be massively downvoted for sheerly tactical and ideological reasons. You could hardly have a thread less conducive to the stated aims of HN discussion.
    • UK-Al05 5y ago
      I wouldn't say they're opposite. But I would say they're ok in abandoning liberal ideals in order achieve their goals. I.E Mob justice, "positive" discrimination, silence is violence, ostracization of people who dare think differently, etc etc But if you don't take liberal ideas seriously, suddenly you validate authoritarian tactics. The only difference then is that it's ok to use authoritarian tactics just as long as they push my ideas, and not yours. If you don't like authoritarian tactics that right wing people use, you can't use authoritarian tactics to promote left ideas without being a massive hypocrite. Either using authoritarian tactics is ok or it isn't. Most atrocities in the world come from the authoritarian parts of politics regardless of where you are on the left/right spectrum. My ideas are the right way, and I'm going enforce it using law, mob justice and violence. As opposed to liberalism where diversity of thought is welcomed.
• stackedinserter 5y ago
  > Nothing wrong with people with non conformist clothing and views. Let them be, let them express and find themselves. ...and be cancelled, fired and banned from being hired anywhere.
• dukeofdoom 5y ago
  >Nothing wrong with people having tattoos everywhere, green >or violet hair, non conformist clothing and views. Let them >be, let them express and find themselves Wonder if you would be as supportive of the Hitler mustache
• gmadsen 5y ago
  there is evidence that runs contrary to your last sentence
• zpeti 5y ago
  Unfortunately this laissez fair approach is the exact opposite of modern wokeness. It’s their way or it’s attacks and cancellation. If you’re an oppressor class you have almost no way to be forgiven. The easiest way to show this is just ask some woke stars on their views of libertarianism, which is literally to let everyone be themselves.
  • edgyquant 5y ago
    I think you’re picking the most extreme examples. Also there is a difference between libertarianism and Libertarianism.
  • brokencode 5y ago
    From my experience, what libertarians really want is freedom for themselves. They do not actually care how their actions affect others. For example, I’ve yet to meet a libertarian who cares about their carbon emissions, even though that affects everybody else via climate change. Same goes for coronavirus - they don’t care if they spread the disease to others, but they feel like it’s oppression if they have to wear a mask. And the same goes for trampling on the feelings of others, or passively accepting that they’ve been given huge advantages over others in society. They feel like they should be able to do anything short of actually stealing from or hurting others physically, and don’t consider the subtle ways they impact others in society.
    • zpeti 5y ago
      The ACLU supported the rights of neo nazis to protest in a Jewish neighborhood. While not strictly a libertarian organisation, that is exactly the attitude. And libertarians would support that too. The rights of others to be free just like myself. It’s not selfish in any way. And you should read up about why the aclu did this, they say some very relevant things to today.
      • zzzeek 5y ago
        Assuming I were part of an identity group such as Judaism, this would mean parades of people who want to murder me and my family being welcome outside my door to shout for hours of their intent, with no possibility of relief. sign me up for libertarianism!
• refurb 5y ago
  I agree 100% with you but that’s not the woke viewpoint. “Silence is violence”. Either get on board and start supporting them or you’re the enemy.
  • Applejinx 5y ago
    With regard to certain egalitarian principles, yes. Silence is violence when there's a concerted effort to normalize unjustified hierarchy through cultural peer pressure. Whether it's 'let's all make rape jokes, also rapists aren't actually bad', or 'let's put up statues of slavers waaaaay after the war they were in, because slavers aren't actually bad', part of the purpose of such social pressure is to stifle anybody who's inclined to object. The intensity with which people demand their right to performatively line up with bad things they claim they are not, right then, themselves, actually doing, tells me something about those people. I'm deeply not interested in exploring hypotheticals through which people might claim they want to dress up as a Nazi without actually being one, and deeply not impressed with the argument, "You're cruelly trying to punish me for BEING a Nazi, but I am only DRESSED as one, so you're morally obligated to be silent and let me do my own thing!"
• eplanit 5y ago
  What about if their tattoos are swastikas or nooses, and the "non-conformist" views are antithetical with the ideals of "wokeness"? They're "doing as they like", so let them express and find themselves, right?
  • Applejinx 5y ago
    No. This is what critical theory (such as critical race theory) touches on: the obvious fact that social pressure can be applied not only through the letter of law, but also the context of what people can be compelled to tolerate in ordinary daily life. If people constantly joke around about rape, it's clearly not meant to be that big of a crime, plus it's on people's minds as a possible thing to do. If it's normal to go around presented with swastikas and nooses but not normal to react angrily to such messaging, then those things and Nazism and lynching are culturally acceptable regardless of the letter of the law, which will be next on the list to bring up to speed with what the cultural messaging is saying. If it's normal to go around seeing giant expensive statues of slavers put up, not during a conflict but many years later when black civil rights are becoming a thing, then those slavers are the real heroes regardless of what the laws say… and the laws will follow along as soon as it's convenient to do so. It's always projection. The fear of Critical Theory is real and not unjustified. That sort of societal-context thinking is how Nazis, slavers and racists have historically got what THEY wanted, so it stands to reason they'd recognize it right away when it's used against them.
• aeoleonn 5y ago
  I think you mean - "the more open minded ... as long as it's open to what I like and closed to what I don't" - "do as you like as long as I approve" And I'm not speaking to you-- But rather extrapolating these as they represent the fake tolerance of the anti-traditional neomarxists-- SJWs who typically exhibit substantial fascist traits * --> See those downvotes? Point proven :) The hypocrisy of those who claim tolerance of different perspectives *
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• zionic 5y ago
  Unfortunately the lolbertarian approach overlooks the fact that you live in a civilization composed of others humans, and that the collective mental health of said humans can very quickly impact your day to day life. So you, as an individual, have a vested interest in participating in social trends/resisting social normalization of beliefs that harm your way of life. Say you enjoy the pub, it is in your interest to resist a social movement banning alcohol (or immigration from countries where these views are common).
• throwaway894345 5y ago
  What you’re describing seems to be ordinary, popular liberal values. Wokeness regresses toward segregation and race essentialism. For example, a white Dane is unfit to translate the work of a Black poet because a white person cannot understand the experiences of a black person—the difference between any white person and any black person in the 21st century are far greater than the 21st century Dane and the 15th century Shakespeare whom the Dane regularly translates without controversy. Or similarly, a school board decides that an eminently qualified white man is unfit to volunteer because he can’t possibly empathize with the experiences of minorities. Or the woke demande to dispense of standardized tests because these tests only judge us according to “white” strengths (literacy, reason, etc) which blacks or other minorities don’t possess. https://mobile.twitter.com/JamaalBowmanNY/status/1376520062773903364 https://mobile.twitter.com/JamaalBowmanNY/status/13765200627...