Hacker News Reader

Comment by feurio | Hacker News Reader

OK, the actual definition on that page is:

Woke (/ˈwoʊk/ WOHK) is an English adjective meaning 'alert to racial prejudice and discrimination' that originated in African-American Vernacular English (AAVE).

Google says: adjective: woke; comparative adjective: woker; superlative adjective: wokest

    alert to injustice in society, especially racism.
    "we need to stay angry, and stay woke"

Merriam Webster: chiefly US slang : aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)

So, that seems to be the accepted defintion. I can't really copypasta the whole Wikipedia page now, can I.

The last sentence was not a personal attack, it was merely the logical conclusion his own appraisal of himself; "I am an anti-woke"

If you have an alterative defintion that would refute the conclusion then I'm all ears.

View on HN

Sorry for the late reply;

There is a whole section called "Woke as a pejorative term", also an earlier section states: "there is no single agreed-upon definition of woke".

The point is instead of interacting with the thread to find out the contextual meaning, you decided to settle one a definition simplistic enough to conclude "op is for racism/discrimination".

First, formal logical analysis of complex semantics (which that Wikipedia page implies is the case for the word "woke") doesn't work.

Even if it did, "anti-" can refer to any aspect of something; and since there is often no distinction between a-<something> and anti-<something>, this further illustrates why trying to guess the meaning of a word doesn't work.

> If you have an alterative defintion that would refute the conclusion then I'm all ears.

Given by wccrawford in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30349172

Which also calls into question your disingenuity:

> I'm just stuggling to see why being alert to racial prejudice and discrimination is bad thing

wccrawford pretty clearly explained it, but here you are reverting back to ignorance.

But still you're here getting only the definition that you want to take and ignoring all the other stuff about wokes fighting for their ideals by trying to censor, ban, fire those who have different ideas, instead of discussing... I already told you that their attention to those things is not the problem but is the attitude no?

Let's say that I am a guy, attentive to social justice, noble. Then I am that same guy who reads about someone trying to talk bad about social justice, I converse with him (good), I start calling him names, want his head, want him banned and alienated (bad)

So this is an invite to go further than the definition and that point that you egregiously understood

I've invited you to give me an alternative definition - can you just tack on an extra sentence to the Wikipedia, Merriam-Webster or Goole definitions please? Once you have defined what woke is then you can talk about what they do. Wanting people banned, censored, fired are actions that can be carried out by anyone. Vladimir Putin has people banned, censored, fired (and worse), but he's not woke, is he?

We're having a converstion, but for you to make a valid point that people are doing these thing then you need to present examples.

You couldn't/wouldn't present an example of the newspaper wokeness that you suggest is happening.

Give me just one (your best) concrete example of this woke culture in action and you'll have made a point, otherwise this is all just angels dancing on the head of pin territory.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com