6 ms·

You should have finished reading PG's essay. It's really quite narrowly scoped. There's no indication I could see that he doesn't still hold the same basically

• spokaneplumb 2y ago
  This one’s footnote #2 addresses PG’s definition of “woke”, which I agree is useless (I’d go further: that kind’s so inconsequential that it’s nonsense to bring it up unless you’re using those complaints to attack other actions that do maybe have some justification, using the definition as cover to retreat to if called out; if that’s actually the only part you’re complaining about, just don’t write the piece, everyone already dislikes that kind for the same reasons you do)
  • natch 2y ago
    What is “that kind” referring to? That kind of essay? The first essay? The response essay? That kind of definition? The author? Which author? That kind of person who is aggressively performative? If by “that kind” you mean that last definition, then let’s take one example in that happened recently and address your claim that “that kind” is inconsequential. Undemocratically, performatively, anointing behind closed doors a weak but social justice signaling candidate to run on the democratic ticket in the recent US election, seems to have been just a wee bit consequential.
    • spokaneplumb 2y ago
      > Undemocratically, performatively, anointing behind closed doors a weak but social justice signaling candidate to run on the democratic ticket You’re just stringing together bingo-card words. I don’t think this is going to be a productive exchange, so I’ll leave things where they stand.
• michaelt 2y ago
  > It would be great if people could discuss these issues rationally, but the vast majority can't. Everyone is on a hair trigger. If only we in the tech industry could blame social media on anyone but ourselves :(
  • netsharc 2y ago
    My startup idea is a iPhone/Android virtual keyboard that detects the user is writing something toxic, and refuses to cooperate. Using AI. Who wants to fund me? My other idea is a video/audio communication app that mutes the user if they become toxic. Yes, I'm only joking. I wonder how many will be triggered and foam about "But who determines what is toxic!?!". That makes me think about the joke about feminists where the setup is "I have a joke about feminists..." and punchline is someone from the audience yelling "That's not funny!" straight away.
    • mindslight 2y ago
      the buntings have recently changed, so you will want to update your pitch: s/toxic/woke/g
  • andrewflnr 2y ago
    Are you sure? How many of us in tech actually made decisions that made social media how it is? How many of us were even complicit in implementing it? I wasn't. Most of "tech" is not social media. Now how many of us were sounding the alarm and trying to build alternatives? I don't think we should put all the blame on social media anyway.
• skywhopper 2y ago
  The mere fact that pg takes the word “woke” seriously tells me he’s fallen for the right-wing doublespeak where they take a word vaguely related to left-wing ideals, pretend it means something else, apply to anyone center-right or leftward, and get the mainstream media and self-conscious centrists like Paul to accept their intentional distortions at face value. This pattern happens again and again with words and phrases like “liberal”, “socialist”, “Black Lives Matter”, “critical race theory”, “woke”, and “DEI”. Anyone who can’t see through it is either okay with the distortion, or not as good an observer as they think.
  • marcusverus 2y ago
    It might be reasonable to disregard Mr. Graham if he were somehow abusing the term "woke", but it seems wrongheaded to disregard him due to "the mere fact that [he] takes the word "woke" seriously".
    • otde 2y ago
      The point OP is making (and it ‘s one that I agree with) is that Graham’s particular usage of the word “woke” as written in his essay functions as a shibboleth for a collection of reactionary beliefs and impulses — not merely that he uses the word, but that he does so in a poorly-defined and pejorative way that is characteristic of the word’s usage in various right-leaning circles.
  • andrewflnr 2y ago
    From the essay: > This was not the original meaning of woke, but it's rarely used in the original sense now. Now the pejorative sense is the dominant one. What does it mean now? It's early in the essay, too. Pretty near or above "the fold".
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• r0p3 2y ago
  It is not narrowly scoped, it states that we need to stop another "wave" of "social justice piggishness" which would include challenging the gender identity framework the author is using among other things. It also makes broad claims about social justice politics writ large. Having read it carefully I found the hn thread interesting and it correctly criticized the essay's lazy reasoning.
  • runjake 2y ago
    Unless pg just now edited it out, you're making false quotes and misrepresenting his words. I cannot find the quote "social justice piggishness" or the word "gender" in his essay. Every single mention of the word "wave" is attached to "wave of political correctness" or a close variation thereof. Edit: OP meant "priggishness". Got it.
    • rexpop 2y ago
      It's a typo. Paul's term is "priggish". And "political correctness" is a broad brush euphemism for, among other things, genderqueerness.
      • runjake 2y ago
        Thanks for this. I've always considered PC an entirely different thing, but after perusing the comments here, and given our new president's attitude toward the people affected, I can see your point.
  • carabiner 2y ago
    I don't think pig and prig mean the same thing.
  • r0p3 2y ago
    Sorry my mistake I meant "priggishness"
• BearOso 2y ago
  This is exactly the thing the essay seems to be complaining about. It's not the ethics of equality being targeted, it's the moral hypocrisy. People put on a false front with offensive messaging claiming support of these groups, but the whole purpose is to build clout or benefit themselves. They don't care about the message at all. Messages like "I support lgbtq, and if you don't you're a bigot," are self-aggrandizement. "I support lgbtq," is all that's needed if you want people to know they are supported. No one needs to hear it at all if the discussion isn't relevant. Just try to treat everybody with respect.
  • netsharc 2y ago
    Re your last paragraph: I feel I'm quite left, but it feels like a lot of these activists are busy trying to make enemies out of everyone, which makes me think "I'll just shut the hell up" and, if I ever get confronted as being a part of the enemy class (I'm a heterosexual male, get the pitchforks!) , I'll just point out, "if you don't want me as your ally, then hey, no worries, I can be your enemy."...
    • BearOso 2y ago
      That's how I feel. Everyone always has to have an "us vs them" methodology. Like you have to take sides. No thank you, I'm apathetic to the situation. I'm not going to deliberately make life worse for anyone or support it.
    • ZeroGravitas 2y ago
      Have you heard of or witnessed someone who was confronted as part of the enemy class just for being a straight male? Where are you going that you need a contingency plan for this situation? Are you expecting this in a work situation, on a campus maybe, or just walking down the street?
      • netsharc 2y ago
        During BLM, I've seen rhetoric that said "If you're silent, then you're part of the problem!". Sheesh! Luckily I don't live in that quasi-apartheid country and don't have to speak out and say how guilty I am for taking my privileges for granted. I support their right to challenge the oppression, but please, don't make me the enemy if I'm minding my own business. Yes, I get that there's tremendous privilege of being able to not be enraged by the issues...
• klik99 2y ago
  Yes - this is exactly how I felt about the "Wokeness" essay. I am constantly afraid that PG is gonna fall down the same strongly right rabbit hole so many of his colleagues have, and he hasn't so far, so seeing the title of the essay was worrying. When I read it though, I realized he was just using "wokeness" to mean the dogmatic surface level understanding of the subject (IE, not that he was being surface level, but he's talking about people who engage with equality/identity issues in a surface level way). It's kind of a strawman idea, but people like that exist and are annoying. It makes me wonder how many people who are really centrists hate wokeness because they think the most annoying wing of it is representative of the whole movement. Reading PGs article, I get the sense of someone who doesn't fully understand the thing he's criticising, so makes me hopeful he can learn. But again, I'm always a little afraid that the legit criticizisms of his article will get drowned out by people who reinforce what he says in it.
  • pbiggar 2y ago
    [flagged]
• watwut 2y ago
  > He just wanted to talk about how the particular loudmouth brand of annoying leftist came to prominence. Nah, this is just not true about that essay. This is sort of excessive "lets twist what people say with maximum leftist spin so that we can paint everyone who disagree with them as crazy". It is getting repetitive, tiresome and amounts to a massive amount of online gaslighting. Center and left are all supposed to pretend that everyone is leftist just concerned with some extremists, no matter how much it is clear it is not the case, unless someone actually supports nazi party ... and sometimes even longer. That essay did not even cared about actual history of events either.
• hayleox 2y ago
  From the essay: "Consumers have emphatically rejected brands that ventured too far into wokeness. The Bud Light brand may have been permanently damaged by it." What Bud Light did was hire an influencer to promote their product in an Instagram video (and then of course they later backtracked). The only thing "woke" about the video was that the influencer was a trans woman. If Paul Graham would like to elaborate on this passage meant I welcome it, but my read was that supporting a trans woman falls under his definition of "wokeness".
  • notahacker 2y ago
    Indeed. I mean, an article on censorious "priggishness" could have easily picked outrage mobs boycotting brands over deeming a trans person worthy of association as evidence that the "woke" people didn't have a monopoly on self righteousness and censoriousness. Instead, he effectively endorsed the position that trans people were "woke" simply for existing and the consumers cancelling them had a point.
    • didiop 2y ago
      Better than endorsing Dylan Mulvaney's regressive and misogynistic "Days of Girlhood" act. A boycott was the right thing to do.
  • strken 2y ago
    I read this less as "the Bud Light campaign was morally wrong because it was woke" and more as "the Bud Light campaign went disastrously badly for its brand and sales because it was woke". I have heard people call it "the gay beer", which is a pretty bad branding change when double-digit percentages of your (former) drinkers are homophobic and you sponsor NASCAR. One of my personal beliefs is that paedophiles who never act on their inclinations and instead seek treatment are doing the right thing, but I sure as hell wouldn't market a beer using that belief.
    • djur 2y ago
      How was the campaign "woke" unless you define "trans people exist and should be supported" as woke? If Graham dislikes prigs, shouldn't he be criticizing the censorious social conservatives that led the boycott?
• agent281 2y ago
  > Even in the HN thread on the essay, it felt like hardly anyone actually read and understood it, just brought their own assumptions and intellectual allergies and let them run wild. It would be great if people could discuss these issues rationally, but the vast majority can't. Everyone is on a hair trigger. I think the essay was a rorschach test for readers. On its face, it has a very reasonable and measured tone. It also has some nods to the other side like the disclaimer you mentioned. However, it starts from some uncharitable premises (e.g., its definition of wokeness) and contains unnecessary gibes (e.g., against social sciences). More importantly, it takes the tone of a social sciences essay, a discipline that he mocks, without any of the rigor. There are not sources for his claims about the origins of wokeness or how universities operated from the 80's until today, you just have to take him at face value. It gives the illusion of being erudite without doing any of the actual work.
  • sho_hn 2y ago
    pg writing about non-tech topics has always rubbed up against Gell-Mann Amnesia.
• hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  I'm too lazy to search my comment history, but I wrote a comment on the original post about pg's essay that I did pretty much agree with what pg wrote, and so consequently I agree with most of what you wrote. But that said, I definitely could not ignore the timing of pg's essay, and it felt plain gross to me. It felt like a lazy, convenient pile-on at that moment, even if pg's position had been largely consistent for a long time. I've seen all these tech leaders now lining up to point out the problems of the left (again, a lot of which I agree with), so where is the essay about the embarrassingly naked grift of the POTUS launching a ridiculous and useless meme coin just before his inauguration? Also, there was nothing in that essay that I felt was particularly insightful or that I learned much from. It was, honestly, some bloviating pontification from someone who I now think holds his ideas in much higher regard than they deserve.
  • andrewflnr 2y ago
    I can largely agree with this as well. There were plenty of interesting and valid critiques people could make of the content, if they actually read it. I'm seeing a few of them in the replies to my comment here, but more intellectual sneezes.
  • rockemsockem 2y ago
    Idk if it's just me, but I voted blue in the last 3 presidential elections and I'm way more pissed about the Democrats than the Republicans right now. They failed the country, so hard, by making poor decisions which made them lose. They did this repeatedly, I think which decisions were the wrong ones is up for debate, but the surest one imo is Joe Biden running again instead of stepping aside and having a real primary. Anyway, all that is to say that I feel like I understand choosing now as a time to talk about what things you despise most about the left, because a lot of people feel like they failed America and the entire world by losing so decisively for reasons that feel stupid.
    • hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
      Very much agree, but as I've found myself saying lately, "As much as I think the Democrats deserved to lose, I can't fathom thinking Trump deserved to win."
• pavlov 2y ago
  > “he might still be fine with transgender identity” How extremely generous!
  • Wolfenstein98k 2y ago
    This is couched because he doesn't express a view, not because there's reason to doubt or to assume a level of acceptance. Be charitable.
    • andrewflnr 2y ago
      Thank you.