5 ms·

Do you really believe this? It seems inconsistent with free speech and Paul Graham’s own definition of wokeness. What other ideologies fall in this category?

Do you really believe this? It seems inconsistent with free speech and Paul Graham’s own definition of wokeness. What other ideologies fall in this category? Or another way, what ideologies don’t fall under the category of free speech? Should we stop advertisements with gay people? All religions or just non-Christian religions? What makes an ideology woke? That the mainstream is uncomfortable with it?

pkkkzip 2y ago
if you cared about running a business and making money, you should know your customers well and not do anything to upset that demographic this isn't ideology related its market driven reality in capitalist countries
- n4r9 2y ago
  Fine. But thats distinct from what Graham is saying, which is that collaborating with a trans person is "venturing too far into wokeness".
  - userbinator 2y ago
    It is, because why else would they deliberately pick a trans person, and moreover one who goes out of the way to make a big deal out of being trans[1], to sell beer to a demographic that's very very unlikely to be receptive to it? Wokeness is the only explanation left. [1] There are plenty of trans people who just want to live as their desired gender, and no one would even give them a second glance.
    - djur 2y ago
      They were trying to sell beer to the demographic that likes Dylan Mulvaney. None of the existing consumers of Bud Light were affected by the campaign until right-wing activists started promoting a boycott. They didn't run a national campaign with Mulvaney in a swimsuit drinking Bud Light, they didn't put her on the cans, they didn't do anything but do a promotion on her channel.
      - pkkkzip 2y ago
        Dylan was definitely on the cans. The demographic that drinks Bud Light that likes Dylan was definitely a minority as the overwhelming majority of its loyal consumers rejected it overnight. I think its lazy to blame politics for a failed marketing campaign by creating some vilifying your own consumer base. We see the same pattern playing out in all aspects of products that have gone woke, games serving as the most recent example. We live in a capitalist society and consumers will vote with their money and they cannot be forced to buy a product because the media and special interest groups decide to vilify and defame them publicly. This might work in a communist country but even then the effects are short lived.
        n4r9 2y ago
        Dylan was on the one can that Bud sent her, not publicly sold cans. They did similar promotions with other influencers. The reason this one struck a chord is that right-wing agitators found it a useful way to polarise and confuse the discourse.
        pkkkzip 2y ago
        She was definitely on the boxes and promotion materials, are you under the impression that forcefully inserting LGBTQ on people who didn't ask for it achieves the complete opposite of tolerance which the people pushing for it intends? Are you also aware the negative impact of putting images of someone that the customer base does not identify with or find beautiful influencing sales in a capitalist environment?
        n4r9 2y ago
        > She was definitely on the boxes and promotion materials Have you got any proof of this? Everything I've read about it says it was just a single can sent for her to promote in a single video. Your argument hinges strongly on this claim, since a single can in a video is hard to square with "pushing woke ideology".
    - n4r9 2y ago
      I find this line of thought challenging, because it reminds me of what people were saying about homosexuals in the 80s and 90s. Things like "gays are fine as long as they don't kiss in public" and "I don't understand why they have to parade around in these festivals". I'm not sure what's different about transgender people in our generation. Is it possible in your opinion to publicly support trans rights and not be woke?
      - pelchi 2y ago
        [flagged]
        n4r9 2y ago
        I wouldn't describe it as a "lie" so much as challenging the socially prescribed link between sex and gender. Trans people know they're biologically male, and they know you probably know it. But they're challenging the social expectations that get associated with that. The same analogy can again be drawn with homosexuality. 100 years ago, many people believed that it was a biological fact that men preferred women and vice versa. To hear a man proclaiming that he prefers men, or a women proclaiming she prefers women, sounded to them like a lie. But as society progresses, social norms tend to relax. In fact there are people to this day who cannot quite accept the idea that homosexuals might genuinely exist. To such people, seeing a gay couple kissing feels like being expected to ignore a biological fact.
        pelchi 2y ago
        [flagged]
        n4r9 2y ago
        One difference is that dressing up with blackface and watermelon are historically ways in which white people have humiliated and oppressed black people. I don't think you can say the same for cross-dressing. Another difference is that Dylan Mulvaney is actually living as a woman in their everyday life.
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    “wokeness” is the current right-wing dysphemism for “not being a raging bigot against the groups the Right demands be targeted with bigotry”, and, when understood that way, it is clear that this is at least “venturing into bigotry”, and understandable how it could be “too far” from a particular speaker’s perspective.
    - n4r9 2y ago
      Yes. Ultimately I'm attempting to show up the underhand meaning of the term "woke"; the definition given towards the start of Graham's essay is distinct from the way it's being applied here and later in the same essay. It's important because conservatives will use different definitions to support different aspects of their arguments. For example, when woke means "performative and meaningless", then you can argue that it's malicious. However, when woke means "doesn't fully reject progressive causes", then you can argue that it's widespread.

pkkkzip 2y ago

if you cared about running a business and making money, you should know your customers well and not do anything to upset that demographic this isn't ideology related its market driven reality in capitalist countries

n4r9 2y ago
Fine. But thats distinct from what Graham is saying, which is that collaborating with a trans person is "venturing too far into wokeness".
- userbinator 2y ago
  It is, because why else would they deliberately pick a trans person, and moreover one who goes out of the way to make a big deal out of being trans[1], to sell beer to a demographic that's very very unlikely to be receptive to it? Wokeness is the only explanation left. [1] There are plenty of trans people who just want to live as their desired gender, and no one would even give them a second glance.
  - djur 2y ago
    They were trying to sell beer to the demographic that likes Dylan Mulvaney. None of the existing consumers of Bud Light were affected by the campaign until right-wing activists started promoting a boycott. They didn't run a national campaign with Mulvaney in a swimsuit drinking Bud Light, they didn't put her on the cans, they didn't do anything but do a promotion on her channel.
    - pkkkzip 2y ago
      Dylan was definitely on the cans. The demographic that drinks Bud Light that likes Dylan was definitely a minority as the overwhelming majority of its loyal consumers rejected it overnight. I think its lazy to blame politics for a failed marketing campaign by creating some vilifying your own consumer base. We see the same pattern playing out in all aspects of products that have gone woke, games serving as the most recent example. We live in a capitalist society and consumers will vote with their money and they cannot be forced to buy a product because the media and special interest groups decide to vilify and defame them publicly. This might work in a communist country but even then the effects are short lived.
      - n4r9 2y ago
        Dylan was on the one can that Bud sent her, not publicly sold cans. They did similar promotions with other influencers. The reason this one struck a chord is that right-wing agitators found it a useful way to polarise and confuse the discourse.
        pkkkzip 2y ago
        She was definitely on the boxes and promotion materials, are you under the impression that forcefully inserting LGBTQ on people who didn't ask for it achieves the complete opposite of tolerance which the people pushing for it intends? Are you also aware the negative impact of putting images of someone that the customer base does not identify with or find beautiful influencing sales in a capitalist environment?
        n4r9 2y ago
        > She was definitely on the boxes and promotion materials Have you got any proof of this? Everything I've read about it says it was just a single can sent for her to promote in a single video. Your argument hinges strongly on this claim, since a single can in a video is hard to square with "pushing woke ideology".
  - n4r9 2y ago
    I find this line of thought challenging, because it reminds me of what people were saying about homosexuals in the 80s and 90s. Things like "gays are fine as long as they don't kiss in public" and "I don't understand why they have to parade around in these festivals". I'm not sure what's different about transgender people in our generation. Is it possible in your opinion to publicly support trans rights and not be woke?
    - pelchi 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - n4r9 2y ago
        I wouldn't describe it as a "lie" so much as challenging the socially prescribed link between sex and gender. Trans people know they're biologically male, and they know you probably know it. But they're challenging the social expectations that get associated with that. The same analogy can again be drawn with homosexuality. 100 years ago, many people believed that it was a biological fact that men preferred women and vice versa. To hear a man proclaiming that he prefers men, or a women proclaiming she prefers women, sounded to them like a lie. But as society progresses, social norms tend to relax. In fact there are people to this day who cannot quite accept the idea that homosexuals might genuinely exist. To such people, seeing a gay couple kissing feels like being expected to ignore a biological fact.
        pelchi 2y ago
        [flagged]
        n4r9 2y ago
        One difference is that dressing up with blackface and watermelon are historically ways in which white people have humiliated and oppressed black people. I don't think you can say the same for cross-dressing. Another difference is that Dylan Mulvaney is actually living as a woman in their everyday life.
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  “wokeness” is the current right-wing dysphemism for “not being a raging bigot against the groups the Right demands be targeted with bigotry”, and, when understood that way, it is clear that this is at least “venturing into bigotry”, and understandable how it could be “too far” from a particular speaker’s perspective.
  - n4r9 2y ago
    Yes. Ultimately I'm attempting to show up the underhand meaning of the term "woke"; the definition given towards the start of Graham's essay is distinct from the way it's being applied here and later in the same essay. It's important because conservatives will use different definitions to support different aspects of their arguments. For example, when woke means "performative and meaningless", then you can argue that it's malicious. However, when woke means "doesn't fully reject progressive causes", then you can argue that it's widespread.