11 ms·

If you tried to steelman woke, what would fall under it?

by dnissley 2y ago

rectang 2y ago
Conscious of the effects of structural racism.
- jpadkins 2y ago
  if the movement stopped at the level of consciousness, then there wouldn't have been as much backlash. It went way beyond consciousness. You are admonished if you aren't actively anti-racist.
  - amanaplanacanal 2y ago
    I guess a person could be pro-racist, neutral on racism, or anti-racist. Is there another category I'm missing?
    - nec4b 2y ago
      Simply not racist. Anti-racist means racist in reverse.
      - calinet6 2y ago
        It does not mean that at all.
    - ParetoOptimal 2y ago
      You can't be neutral against racists if you believe your lack of action is tacit approval.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
    - zahlman 2y ago
      >Is there another category I'm missing? "Not racist", i.e. what was in the 90s called "colourblind". If you describe yourself this way nowadays, and hold to and espouse those principles - not taking race into consideration when making decisions; considering people a priori to have equal moral worth regardless of race, etc. - self-identified "anti-racist" people will call you "racist". This has happened to me on many occasions. It is nonsense, of course. But sometimes they have social power. It's functionally what happened when I was banned from the Python Discourse forum, except they went a step further and claimed (utterly groundlessly) that I was accusing them of "reverse racism" (a term which I do not use, and which I view as an invention of self-identified "progressives" to strawman the views of those opposed to them) in taking other moderation actions against me.
      - antifa 2y ago
        > It's functionally what happened when I was banned from the Python Discourse forum, except they went a step further and claimed (utterly groundlessly) Are we suppose to pick who to agree with (you or the mods) merely based on tribalistic priors? You didn't post any documentation, there's no way for anyone to fact check whether or not the mods are actually acting in bad faith, or whether or not you were unjustly banned.
        zahlman 2y ago
        >there's no way for anyone to fact check I've talked about it before. I came to HN because of the Tim Peters suspension, which was related to my situation. I have archives of my related post content (since much of it got deleted) on my blog. Regardless, the burden of proof would be on them to establish that I made any such accusations (the fact of those accusations is clear: https://discuss.python.org/t/im-leaving-too/58408/11 https://discuss.python.org/t/im-leaving-too/58408/11 ).
cmdli 2y ago
Generally speaking, most people on the left talk about a certain number of ideas. For example, many on the left believe strongly in trans rights. They believe that trans rights are either being actively limited or are actively under threat by people they believe are trying to either get rid of them or force them back into the shadows. So, when a prominent figure such as JK Rowling starts both talking about “protecting women” and the “trans mafia”, they become concerned about what influence she might have on the debate on the rights of trans people. They criticize what they believe to be false or harmful beliefs about trans people and believe that her words are actively doing harm by promoting those false beliefs. People on the left generally do not believe strongly that “more discussion leads to correct beliefs”. They point to the many moral panics, bigoted movements, and real harm done to certain groups in history and do not believe that what some call “open discussion” has historically always led to the least harm. People on the left generally do not believe that all discussion needs to be censored or tightly controlled. Rather, they view certain beliefs and viewpoints as actively harmful because they spread harmful beliefs about particular demographics. They believe that political discussion can, and does, go beyond what is useful or helpful sometimes.
- zimpenfish 2y ago
  > “more discussion leads to correct beliefs” Generally the people saying that really mean "more (listening to what I say) leads to (what I believe) beliefs".
- aemin 2y ago
  > So, when a prominent figure such as JK Rowling starts both talking about “protecting women” and the “trans mafia”, they become concerned about what influence she might have on the debate on the rights of trans people. They criticize what they believe to be false or harmful beliefs about trans people and believe that her words are actively doing harm by promoting those false beliefs. They should probably educate themselves by listening to what she says about women's rights then. Maybe then they'd understand her perspective and her principles. That would be much, much better than what they actually did: call her a cunt and wish death and rape upon her. Which really is not the most convincing of counterarguments.
BobaFloutist 2y ago
It just means being awake with regards to your position in society and privileges. Recognizing your unearned advantages (and disadvantages) and managing to swallow your ego and acknowledge the ways you've benefited from society's stratifications. The problem, of course, is that "Awareness and acknowledgement of the true nature of society" can be interpreted to mean a thousand different things, some of which are more accurate and actionable than others.
- djur 2y ago
  Right. The original meaning was just "politically aware", the same basic metaphor as the "Wide-Awakes" in the Civil War era. If you go back far enough you found it sometimes used in the "wake up sheeple" sense (i.e. referring to a conspiracy mindset). But it's basically never been the self-appellation of a political or cultural movement; essentially everyone who uses it that way is deriving it from critical right-wing discourse.
- atmavatar 2y ago
  > Recognizing your unearned advantages (and disadvantages) and managing to swallow your ego and acknowledge the ways you've benefited from society's stratifications. This has always struck me as a fatal messaging problem. When you couch the problem as being one of unearned advantages, the obvious implication is that you believe the solution is to take away something from the "privileged" group, which immediately puts many people on the defensive, especially if they feel like they're already having a tough time of things. The real problem isn't that [men / white people] may indirectly get propped-up when others are artificially held down -- it's that people are being held down. The current (and disastrous) progressive messaging often sounds like "we want to hold you down, too".
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    > When you couch the problem as being one of unearned advantages, the obvious implication is that you believe the solution is to take away something from the "privileged" group... That's one possible interpretation, yes. Not everything works that way, though. Gay people getting married didn't take anything away from me. As the meme goes, "it's not pie".
alienthrowaway 2y ago
An ideology that highlights the existence of, questions, and probably seeks to undermine a number of current social hierarchies, and power structures. Whether this is seen as a good or bad thing depends in where one falls on the left/right spectrum.
- UncleOxidant 2y ago
  > Whether this is seen as a good or bad thing depends in where one falls on the left/right spectrum. And/or where one falls in the social hierarchy and power structures.
PaulHoule 2y ago
[flagged]
- verall 2y ago
  I'm having some trouble understanding, does "These people" refer to the David family referenced in the article, the Jane Minor community garden referenced, Rootwork Herbals mentioned, or some other group of people? > some of them have told me that he's always been eccentric and hard to live with and some of them have tried to talk him out of his misbehavior to know avail It sounds like the alleged crimes in the article are pretty rough to put up with, if it was your neighbor: > David alleges Whittaker has vandalized her son's car, spray painted her fence, threateningly shot a BB gun in the air during a teen gardening session, removed sections of her fence and threatened to hit her son with a stick, among other offenses. I wouldn't call that kind of behavior "eccentric", maybe antisocial. And if that behavior was directed mainly towards their black neighbor, I would call it racist.
  - PaulHoule 2y ago
    David's behavior is criminal, racist and all that. I think he's a total ass, but I know he's an alcoholic and all indications I have is that he's mentally ill. I also know members of his extended family and, yes, many of them voted for Trump, but none of them would do the kind of crap he did. I'll point to "rootwork herbals" as being provocative in that so much duckspeak rolls out of their lips. (e.g. wtf is "femme"? does being fat erase my sin of being a white man? how fat do I have to be?) If they didn't have David as a neighbor they'd attract somebody else that's the same; they are planning on moving but their problems will follow them whereever they go.)
KerrAvon 2y ago
[flagged]
- bpt3 2y ago
  If that were a remotely accurate definition of how it is commonly used, you'd have a point. Instead we can see you're part of the problem.
  - amanaplanacanal 2y ago
    Could you describe how you see it commonly used? I'm unsure what you mean here.
    - bpt3 2y ago
      See the article we're discussing.
  - calinet6 2y ago
    It's an extremely accurate definition of what we genuinely believe. There is no ulterior motive. There is no hidden agenda. It's very simple, and we're all confused why it even needs to be a 'thing.'
    - bpt3 2y ago
      The "we" you mention must be an extremely small portion of society then. What percentage of Americans disagree with that definition of woke in your opinion (or with data if you have it)?
      - kiitos 2y ago
        Yelling about the "woke" left, is basically like yelling about the "ayran" right. Nobody disagrees that these things are bad, it's just that they're irrelevant.
        2y ago
slothtrop 2y ago
[flagged]
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  That's strawmanning, not steelmanning.
  - slothtrop 2y ago
    [flagged]

If you tried to steelman woke, what would fall under it?

rectang 2y ago

Conscious of the effects of structural racism.

jpadkins 2y ago
if the movement stopped at the level of consciousness, then there wouldn't have been as much backlash. It went way beyond consciousness. You are admonished if you aren't actively anti-racist.
- amanaplanacanal 2y ago
  I guess a person could be pro-racist, neutral on racism, or anti-racist. Is there another category I'm missing?
  - nec4b 2y ago
    Simply not racist. Anti-racist means racist in reverse.
    - calinet6 2y ago
      It does not mean that at all.
  - ParetoOptimal 2y ago
    You can't be neutral against racists if you believe your lack of action is tacit approval.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - zahlman 2y ago
    >Is there another category I'm missing? "Not racist", i.e. what was in the 90s called "colourblind". If you describe yourself this way nowadays, and hold to and espouse those principles - not taking race into consideration when making decisions; considering people a priori to have equal moral worth regardless of race, etc. - self-identified "anti-racist" people will call you "racist". This has happened to me on many occasions. It is nonsense, of course. But sometimes they have social power. It's functionally what happened when I was banned from the Python Discourse forum, except they went a step further and claimed (utterly groundlessly) that I was accusing them of "reverse racism" (a term which I do not use, and which I view as an invention of self-identified "progressives" to strawman the views of those opposed to them) in taking other moderation actions against me.
    - antifa 2y ago
      > It's functionally what happened when I was banned from the Python Discourse forum, except they went a step further and claimed (utterly groundlessly) Are we suppose to pick who to agree with (you or the mods) merely based on tribalistic priors? You didn't post any documentation, there's no way for anyone to fact check whether or not the mods are actually acting in bad faith, or whether or not you were unjustly banned.
      - zahlman 2y ago
        >there's no way for anyone to fact check I've talked about it before. I came to HN because of the Tim Peters suspension, which was related to my situation. I have archives of my related post content (since much of it got deleted) on my blog. Regardless, the burden of proof would be on them to establish that I made any such accusations (the fact of those accusations is clear: https://discuss.python.org/t/im-leaving-too/58408/11 https://discuss.python.org/t/im-leaving-too/58408/11 ).

cmdli 2y ago

Generally speaking, most people on the left talk about a certain number of ideas. For example, many on the left believe strongly in trans rights. They believe that trans rights are either being actively limited or are actively under threat by people they believe are trying to either get rid of them or force them back into the shadows. So, when a prominent figure such as JK Rowling starts both talking about “protecting women” and the “trans mafia”, they become concerned about what influence she might have on the debate on the rights of trans people. They criticize what they believe to be false or harmful beliefs about trans people and believe that her words are actively doing harm by promoting those false beliefs. People on the left generally do not believe strongly that “more discussion leads to correct beliefs”. They point to the many moral panics, bigoted movements, and real harm done to certain groups in history and do not believe that what some call “open discussion” has historically always led to the least harm. People on the left generally do not believe that all discussion needs to be censored or tightly controlled. Rather, they view certain beliefs and viewpoints as actively harmful because they spread harmful beliefs about particular demographics. They believe that political discussion can, and does, go beyond what is useful or helpful sometimes.

zimpenfish 2y ago
> “more discussion leads to correct beliefs” Generally the people saying that really mean "more (listening to what I say) leads to (what I believe) beliefs".
aemin 2y ago
> So, when a prominent figure such as JK Rowling starts both talking about “protecting women” and the “trans mafia”, they become concerned about what influence she might have on the debate on the rights of trans people. They criticize what they believe to be false or harmful beliefs about trans people and believe that her words are actively doing harm by promoting those false beliefs. They should probably educate themselves by listening to what she says about women's rights then. Maybe then they'd understand her perspective and her principles. That would be much, much better than what they actually did: call her a cunt and wish death and rape upon her. Which really is not the most convincing of counterarguments.

BobaFloutist 2y ago

It just means being awake with regards to your position in society and privileges. Recognizing your unearned advantages (and disadvantages) and managing to swallow your ego and acknowledge the ways you've benefited from society's stratifications. The problem, of course, is that "Awareness and acknowledgement of the true nature of society" can be interpreted to mean a thousand different things, some of which are more accurate and actionable than others.

djur 2y ago
Right. The original meaning was just "politically aware", the same basic metaphor as the "Wide-Awakes" in the Civil War era. If you go back far enough you found it sometimes used in the "wake up sheeple" sense (i.e. referring to a conspiracy mindset). But it's basically never been the self-appellation of a political or cultural movement; essentially everyone who uses it that way is deriving it from critical right-wing discourse.
atmavatar 2y ago
> Recognizing your unearned advantages (and disadvantages) and managing to swallow your ego and acknowledge the ways you've benefited from society's stratifications. This has always struck me as a fatal messaging problem. When you couch the problem as being one of unearned advantages, the obvious implication is that you believe the solution is to take away something from the "privileged" group, which immediately puts many people on the defensive, especially if they feel like they're already having a tough time of things. The real problem isn't that [men / white people] may indirectly get propped-up when others are artificially held down -- it's that people are being held down. The current (and disastrous) progressive messaging often sounds like "we want to hold you down, too".
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  > When you couch the problem as being one of unearned advantages, the obvious implication is that you believe the solution is to take away something from the "privileged" group... That's one possible interpretation, yes. Not everything works that way, though. Gay people getting married didn't take anything away from me. As the meme goes, "it's not pie".

alienthrowaway 2y ago

An ideology that highlights the existence of, questions, and probably seeks to undermine a number of current social hierarchies, and power structures. Whether this is seen as a good or bad thing depends in where one falls on the left/right spectrum.

UncleOxidant 2y ago
> Whether this is seen as a good or bad thing depends in where one falls on the left/right spectrum. And/or where one falls in the social hierarchy and power structures.

PaulHoule 2y ago

[flagged]

verall 2y ago
I'm having some trouble understanding, does "These people" refer to the David family referenced in the article, the Jane Minor community garden referenced, Rootwork Herbals mentioned, or some other group of people? > some of them have told me that he's always been eccentric and hard to live with and some of them have tried to talk him out of his misbehavior to know avail It sounds like the alleged crimes in the article are pretty rough to put up with, if it was your neighbor: > David alleges Whittaker has vandalized her son's car, spray painted her fence, threateningly shot a BB gun in the air during a teen gardening session, removed sections of her fence and threatened to hit her son with a stick, among other offenses. I wouldn't call that kind of behavior "eccentric", maybe antisocial. And if that behavior was directed mainly towards their black neighbor, I would call it racist.
- PaulHoule 2y ago
  David's behavior is criminal, racist and all that. I think he's a total ass, but I know he's an alcoholic and all indications I have is that he's mentally ill. I also know members of his extended family and, yes, many of them voted for Trump, but none of them would do the kind of crap he did. I'll point to "rootwork herbals" as being provocative in that so much duckspeak rolls out of their lips. (e.g. wtf is "femme"? does being fat erase my sin of being a white man? how fat do I have to be?) If they didn't have David as a neighbor they'd attract somebody else that's the same; they are planning on moving but their problems will follow them whereever they go.)

KerrAvon 2y ago

[flagged]

bpt3 2y ago
If that were a remotely accurate definition of how it is commonly used, you'd have a point. Instead we can see you're part of the problem.
- amanaplanacanal 2y ago
  Could you describe how you see it commonly used? I'm unsure what you mean here.
  - bpt3 2y ago
    See the article we're discussing.
- calinet6 2y ago
  It's an extremely accurate definition of what we genuinely believe. There is no ulterior motive. There is no hidden agenda. It's very simple, and we're all confused why it even needs to be a 'thing.'
  - bpt3 2y ago
    The "we" you mention must be an extremely small portion of society then. What percentage of Americans disagree with that definition of woke in your opinion (or with data if you have it)?
    - kiitos 2y ago
      Yelling about the "woke" left, is basically like yelling about the "ayran" right. Nobody disagrees that these things are bad, it's just that they're irrelevant.
      - 2y ago

slothtrop 2y ago

[flagged]

ceejayoz 2y ago
That's strawmanning, not steelmanning.
- slothtrop 2y ago
  [flagged]