3 ms·

> Ok, so there was no point in responding to you. Maybe, as your comment had little content (except showing contempt). But there might be a point in reading Ha

> Ok, so there was no point in responding to you. Maybe, as your comment had little content (except showing contempt). But there might be a point in reading Hanania's argument: https://richardhanania.substack.com/p/woke-institutions-is-just-civil-rights https://richardhanania.substack.com/p/woke-institutions-is-j...

slg 4y ago
My most recent comment was not about the merits of the argument for repeal. It was about the way you used the term "wokeness". You didn't say something like "wokeness has gone too far." That would grant some ethical ambiguity to the word. You used it as something that is inherently bad and needs to be avoided. People who do that generally have an awful definition for the word and are usually already so set in their ways that there is no point to debate the issue.
- cato_the_elder 4y ago
  > You used it as something that is inherently bad and needs to be avoided. Yes, that's indeed what I think. > already so set in their ways that there is no point to debate the issue. So I'm not allowed to use words with negative connotations (or have values different than yours) lest I be deemed "set in my ways"?
  - slg 4y ago
    >So I'm not allowed to use words with negative connotations (or have values different than yours) lest I be deemed "set in my ways"? It is not just a word with negative connotations. It is that you revealed your definition of the word as purely negative. Ask a person how they define "woke" and they will reveal a lot about their politics.
    - beepbeepcabbage 4y ago
    - cato_the_elder 4y ago
      > It is that you revealed your definition of the word as purely negative. It is. I'm not sure in what sense that would be a revelation though. > Ask a person how they define "woke" and they will reveal a lot about their politics. Well, yes, we probably have different politics.

slg 4y ago

My most recent comment was not about the merits of the argument for repeal. It was about the way you used the term "wokeness". You didn't say something like "wokeness has gone too far." That would grant some ethical ambiguity to the word. You used it as something that is inherently bad and needs to be avoided. People who do that generally have an awful definition for the word and are usually already so set in their ways that there is no point to debate the issue.

cato_the_elder 4y ago
> You used it as something that is inherently bad and needs to be avoided. Yes, that's indeed what I think. > already so set in their ways that there is no point to debate the issue. So I'm not allowed to use words with negative connotations (or have values different than yours) lest I be deemed "set in my ways"?
- slg 4y ago
  >So I'm not allowed to use words with negative connotations (or have values different than yours) lest I be deemed "set in my ways"? It is not just a word with negative connotations. It is that you revealed your definition of the word as purely negative. Ask a person how they define "woke" and they will reveal a lot about their politics.
  - beepbeepcabbage 4y ago
  - cato_the_elder 4y ago
    > It is that you revealed your definition of the word as purely negative. It is. I'm not sure in what sense that would be a revelation though. > Ask a person how they define "woke" and they will reveal a lot about their politics. Well, yes, we probably have different politics.