4 ms·

FTA: > There will always be prigs. And in particular there will always be the enforcers among them, the aggressively conventional-minded. These people are born

FTA: > There will always be prigs. And in particular there will always be the enforcers among them, the aggressively conventional-minded. These people are born that way. Every society has them. So the best we can do is to keep them bottled up. But who will morality police the morality police? (Paul Graham of course!) Jokes aside, the difference between the 1) and 2) is the difference between progressivism and wokeism. But I think many here – as well as the article – miss the point by aiming squarely at 'noisy' humanities students, and not at the governments and corporations that leveraged their movements into this realm of the purely performative. That's not to say that there isn't scope for government and corporate interventions that actually make positive change to social justice outcomes. And there's also some merit to both online and meatspace activism causing many bad actors to consider their behavior (e.g., Harvey Weinstein, excessive force by law enforcement, wrongful incarcerations/executions).

raxxor 2y ago
[flagged]
- rbanffy 2y ago
  > like further discrimination People who perceive themselves as losing rights will always be angry at losing their privileges. Growing up white in Brazil was great for the most part: police never stopped me, I got away of many speeding tickets just because I looked like a “good kid”, and so on. My non-white friends never had it that easy. One was charged with drug trafficking because the combined amount of pot he and his white friend were carrying went over the limit a single one could be carrying before being considered a dealer. Of course the police assumed it was the less Caucasian (in reality, it was the other guy who went to buy the pot from his dealer). Even though the white friend stated half the pot was his, the case went to trial.
  - raxxor 2y ago
    I don't think you can reframe that in a way if you introduce policies that treat people differently. And I don't believe people feel they lose rights as long as they are treated equally. As I said, rulebook of toxic middle management. Treat people differently and they fight among themselves and you don't have them on their back. Simple workplace dynamic, even if not intuitive.
    - chaps 2y ago
      Do you believe that Native Americans should continue receiving the benefits provided by the federal government? Considering that their land was taken and millions of their people were killed during the era of Manifest Destiny, it seems like a reasonable question to consider that maybe, just maybe, not everyone is on equal footing.
TheOtherHobbes 2y ago
That's not a joke. This piece is so ridiculously tone deaf precisely because it lacks any hint of self-awareness that exactly the same performative priggishness is normal for the right - with the difference that it's aggressively economically self-serving, often irrational and sometimes anti-scientific, rather than simply annoying. IMO the priggishness is baked into American culture, which is descended from cranky puritans and literally defined itself as the most moral (police) force in the world after genociding the original inhabitants of the continent and setting up a culture for billionaires that leaves even qualified and talented workers increasingly insecure about housing and health care. In reality "woke" has been a hugely convenient way for the US establishment to confine the Left to a ghetto of minority interests, especially about sexuality. Because if the Left rediscovered economic justice as a cause it would cross political boundaries and become a raging wildfire. (See also - Luigi.) So now we have anti-woke for the wannabe intellectuals, and Q for the useful idiots. Meanwhile Graham is more outraged - outraged I say - by how annoying feminism etc are than by election interference, raw milk drinkers, and the spread of lunatic propaganda about vaccinations and climate science.
- h0l0cube 2y ago
  > Because if the Left rediscovered economic justice as a cause it would cross political boundaries and become a raging wildfire. (See also - Luigi.) There is a definitely a new discourse gaining traction post-Luigi that the polarization between left and right has been used as a distraction to the ever widening disparity in wealth, and the receding quality of life in the West. > Meanwhile Graham is more outraged - outraged I say - by how annoying feminism etc are than by election interference I've no insights into the specific nature of PG's outrage, but I imagine some in the SV entrepreneurial bubble might be concerned with how effective activists can be at ruining financial ledgers using boycotts and the like. Such power wielded by the plebs can be concerning, especially when businesses need to stay solvent, so it is indeed best to keep a lid on it.
  - rbanffy 2y ago
    There’s also the perception the Trump administration will be a pay-to-play game and anyone who doesn’t show signs of alignment will be prevented from participating in decision-making, industry incentives, government contracts and so on. I don’t think there is any sensible person on the planet that hasn’t noticed that.

raxxor 2y ago

[flagged]

rbanffy 2y ago
> like further discrimination People who perceive themselves as losing rights will always be angry at losing their privileges. Growing up white in Brazil was great for the most part: police never stopped me, I got away of many speeding tickets just because I looked like a “good kid”, and so on. My non-white friends never had it that easy. One was charged with drug trafficking because the combined amount of pot he and his white friend were carrying went over the limit a single one could be carrying before being considered a dealer. Of course the police assumed it was the less Caucasian (in reality, it was the other guy who went to buy the pot from his dealer). Even though the white friend stated half the pot was his, the case went to trial.
- raxxor 2y ago
  I don't think you can reframe that in a way if you introduce policies that treat people differently. And I don't believe people feel they lose rights as long as they are treated equally. As I said, rulebook of toxic middle management. Treat people differently and they fight among themselves and you don't have them on their back. Simple workplace dynamic, even if not intuitive.
  - chaps 2y ago
    Do you believe that Native Americans should continue receiving the benefits provided by the federal government? Considering that their land was taken and millions of their people were killed during the era of Manifest Destiny, it seems like a reasonable question to consider that maybe, just maybe, not everyone is on equal footing.

TheOtherHobbes 2y ago

That's not a joke. This piece is so ridiculously tone deaf precisely because it lacks any hint of self-awareness that exactly the same performative priggishness is normal for the right - with the difference that it's aggressively economically self-serving, often irrational and sometimes anti-scientific, rather than simply annoying. IMO the priggishness is baked into American culture, which is descended from cranky puritans and literally defined itself as the most moral (police) force in the world after genociding the original inhabitants of the continent and setting up a culture for billionaires that leaves even qualified and talented workers increasingly insecure about housing and health care. In reality "woke" has been a hugely convenient way for the US establishment to confine the Left to a ghetto of minority interests, especially about sexuality. Because if the Left rediscovered economic justice as a cause it would cross political boundaries and become a raging wildfire. (See also - Luigi.) So now we have anti-woke for the wannabe intellectuals, and Q for the useful idiots. Meanwhile Graham is more outraged - outraged I say - by how annoying feminism etc are than by election interference, raw milk drinkers, and the spread of lunatic propaganda about vaccinations and climate science.

h0l0cube 2y ago
> Because if the Left rediscovered economic justice as a cause it would cross political boundaries and become a raging wildfire. (See also - Luigi.) There is a definitely a new discourse gaining traction post-Luigi that the polarization between left and right has been used as a distraction to the ever widening disparity in wealth, and the receding quality of life in the West. > Meanwhile Graham is more outraged - outraged I say - by how annoying feminism etc are than by election interference I've no insights into the specific nature of PG's outrage, but I imagine some in the SV entrepreneurial bubble might be concerned with how effective activists can be at ruining financial ledgers using boycotts and the like. Such power wielded by the plebs can be concerning, especially when businesses need to stay solvent, so it is indeed best to keep a lid on it.
- rbanffy 2y ago
  There’s also the perception the Trump administration will be a pay-to-play game and anyone who doesn’t show signs of alignment will be prevented from participating in decision-making, industry incentives, government contracts and so on. I don’t think there is any sensible person on the planet that hasn’t noticed that.