Another article of Drew Devault grasping straws. For example he picks out this quote when trying to diminish Paul Graham:
Racism, for example, is a genuine problem. Not a problem on the scale that the woke believe it to be, but a genuine one. I don’t think any reasonable person would deny that. The problem with political correctness was not that it focused on marginalized groups, but the shallow, aggressive way in which it did so. Instead of going out into the world and quietly helping members of marginalized groups, the politically correct focused on getting people in trouble for using the wrong words to talk about them.
I literally don’t see what’s wrong with this quote. Paul Graham is referencing identity politics, virtue signaling, and other behaviors that were definitely common before, and are still fairly common today.
It’s easy: “Woke” and “political correctness” are words that are not really used by left-wing people. There are only a few lefties who would call themselves “woke” or who would advocate for “political correctness”. Those words, however, have been taken over by right-wing conservatives and are used broadly to bash the other side. So if somebody is using that like Paul Graham here is doing, you know that he has a right-wing-conservative world view. Just because using “woke” as a category is nothing somebody progressive left-wing would do.
I never said Paul Graham was a progressive left wing? Also that’s the exact identity politics that I was alluding to. Categorizing people and then making large assumptions on the meaning of their words based on the categorization.
As I mentioned in another comment, “Woke” can simply mean “people who virtue signal but don’t bother to engage with the issues deeply”, and with that definition Paul Graham’s quote makes perfect sense
In case anyone reading this is wondering if @muelltonne@feddit.org and Drew DeVault are imagining meanings behind these words, you can go and read the entire article:
In context, it is clear that Paul Graham regards any public protest for social justice to be performative and born from a need to feel morally superior to others. “Racism […] is a genuine problem”, but you are only ever allowed to “quietly” help marginalized groups. His examples for the birth of “wokeness” are people starting to report sexual harassment and racist language. Paul is very mad that people told him it’s not ok to call black people “negros” and it shows plainly in his writing.
He does not give one example of what would be a real racist thing that you are allowed to get mad and vocal about. He does not give one example of proper not-“woke” activism. This is the telltale sign of a fascist pretending to be a moderate worried about the “intolerant left”. Social justices exist, but I won’t name a single one. Helping minorities is good, but every time I see it happen it’s bad and I’m going to call it out.
Racism, for example, is a genuine problem. Not a problem on the scale that the woke believe it to be, but a genuine one.
Anyone who uses “the woke” to describe people who give a shit about that sort of thing can safely be ignored.
Instead of going out into the world and quietly helping members of marginalized groups, the politically correct focused on getting people in trouble for using the wrong words to talk about them.
Let me translate this bit:
"Instead of ignoring systemic problems and quietly helping those being hurt by the systemic injustices, reasonable people focused on getting racists in trouble because they choose to continue to be shitheads using slurs’
Because I have a brain with functional memory and basic pattern recognition. The only people who use “woke” like that are using it to cover for what they really want to say. I’ve seen this plenty of times from MANY right wing shitheads, so if he uses their vernacular, he gets painted with the same brush.
I read it as “people who virtue signal and don’t actually care”
Yeah, that’s the exact mentality I’m talking about. Right wingers have used that exact line on me, because they assume all “woke” actions are performative and aren’t based in real beliefs.
I’m not willing to give people the benefit of the doubt when they use the same speaking style as those who want to hurt me and mine. If he meant to say something else, he should have said it without virtue signalling to the right.
In context, it is clear that Paul Graham regards any public protest for social justice to be performative and born from a need to feel morally superior to others. “Racism […] is a genuine problem”, but you are only ever allowed to “quietly” help marginalized groups. His examples for the birth of “wokeness” are people starting to report sexual harassment and racist language. Paul is very mad that people told him it’s not ok to call black people “negros” and it shows plainly in his writing.
He does not give one example of what would be a real racist thing that you are allowed to get mad and vocal about. He does not give one example of proper not-“woke” activism. This is the telltale sign of a fascist pretending to be a moderate worried about the “intolerant left”. Social justices exist, but I won’t name a single one. Helping minorities is good, but every time I see it happen it’s bad and I’m going to call it out.
Right wingers have used that exact line on me, because they assume all “woke” actions are performative and aren’t based in real beliefs.
Well Paul Graham is not referring to you, since the rest of his quote makes it clear that he is talking about those who don’t engage deeply.
Imo there’s no point in discussing a quote or article if you aren’t going to take it in good faith. If you take the worst interpretation of their words, of course it’s going to be bad.
But if you take Paul Graham’s words at face value, then he’s simply saying that he believes shallow engagement had a large and negative influence on online discourse. That’s all you need to take from that quote.
Another article of Drew Devault grasping straws. For example he picks out this quote when trying to diminish Paul Graham:
I literally don’t see what’s wrong with this quote. Paul Graham is referencing identity politics, virtue signaling, and other behaviors that were definitely common before, and are still fairly common today.
It’s easy: “Woke” and “political correctness” are words that are not really used by left-wing people. There are only a few lefties who would call themselves “woke” or who would advocate for “political correctness”. Those words, however, have been taken over by right-wing conservatives and are used broadly to bash the other side. So if somebody is using that like Paul Graham here is doing, you know that he has a right-wing-conservative world view. Just because using “woke” as a category is nothing somebody progressive left-wing would do.
I never said Paul Graham was a progressive left wing? Also that’s the exact identity politics that I was alluding to. Categorizing people and then making large assumptions on the meaning of their words based on the categorization.
As I mentioned in another comment, “Woke” can simply mean “people who virtue signal but don’t bother to engage with the issues deeply”, and with that definition Paul Graham’s quote makes perfect sense
In case anyone reading this is wondering if @muelltonne@feddit.org and Drew DeVault are imagining meanings behind these words, you can go and read the entire article:
https://paulgraham.com/woke.html
In context, it is clear that Paul Graham regards any public protest for social justice to be performative and born from a need to feel morally superior to others. “Racism […] is a genuine problem”, but you are only ever allowed to “quietly” help marginalized groups. His examples for the birth of “wokeness” are people starting to report sexual harassment and racist language. Paul is very mad that people told him it’s not ok to call black people “negros” and it shows plainly in his writing.
He does not give one example of what would be a real racist thing that you are allowed to get mad and vocal about. He does not give one example of proper not-“woke” activism. This is the telltale sign of a fascist pretending to be a moderate worried about the “intolerant left”. Social justices exist, but I won’t name a single one. Helping minorities is good, but every time I see it happen it’s bad and I’m going to call it out.
Anyone who uses “the woke” to describe people who give a shit about that sort of thing can safely be ignored.
Let me translate this bit:
"Instead of ignoring systemic problems and quietly helping those being hurt by the systemic injustices, reasonable people focused on getting racists in trouble because they choose to continue to be shitheads using slurs’
How do you know what he means by “woke”? I read it as “people who virtue signal and don’t actually care”
your interpretation, not necessarily what he meant
Because I have a brain with functional memory and basic pattern recognition. The only people who use “woke” like that are using it to cover for what they really want to say. I’ve seen this plenty of times from MANY right wing shitheads, so if he uses their vernacular, he gets painted with the same brush.
Yeah, that’s the exact mentality I’m talking about. Right wingers have used that exact line on me, because they assume all “woke” actions are performative and aren’t based in real beliefs.
I’m not willing to give people the benefit of the doubt when they use the same speaking style as those who want to hurt me and mine. If he meant to say something else, he should have said it without virtue signalling to the right.
Edit: reading Paul’s original article doesn’t really change my original interpretation. @patatahooligan@lemmy.world summarized my feelings better than I could at the moment:
Well Paul Graham is not referring to you, since the rest of his quote makes it clear that he is talking about those who don’t engage deeply.
Imo there’s no point in discussing a quote or article if you aren’t going to take it in good faith. If you take the worst interpretation of their words, of course it’s going to be bad.
But if you take Paul Graham’s words at face value, then he’s simply saying that he believes shallow engagement had a large and negative influence on online discourse. That’s all you need to take from that quote.