Hacker News Reader

Comment by Eisenstein | Hacker News Reader

Do you agree that 'woke' is a loaded word?

Do you agree that by using that word in that way it signals a certain type of political/ideological viewpoint?

Do you agree that if someone did not want to signal that viewpoint it they should know?

There was a period of time where self-described woke people identified themselves as woke, and now there's a period of time where people that don't like woke people mock them as woke, and other people just use it as a descriptor, and it all overlaps, and also all sorts of people have a good idea of the corpus of what woke means. At the very least, it's a useful word to refer to the concept it is meant to capture.

I think there's a cultural thing where once a group's use of the word is "outed" to the public the in-group doesn't like it anymore. That's how it makes me feel seeing you react like this- you're going out of your way to be on the bleeding edge of in-group linguistic fashion.

Let's try something:

> Is it ok to use the word 'black' instead of African American? I wouldn't want to violate anyone's "civil rights".

Does that sentence imply genuine concern for the feelings of black people?

Don't be daft.

You are assuming the intent of the poster. Your "civil rights" example does not capture the same (ambiguous) spirit that the poster's use of "woke" captures.

1. Did they use scare quotes to make it seem like "woke" is a nonsense concept? 2. Did they use quotes to identify that they are aware that they are perhaps using the term ackwardly, having little experience using it in discussion? 3. Are they putting it in quotes because they happen to already be mostly on your side regarding the word's offensiveness, and wanted to have a shorthand way to express that conviction without getting bogged down in the details? 4. Are they putting it in quotes as shorthand for all the ambiguity of points #1-3 and a myriad of other possible positions?

Your line of reasoning is a moral argument against using this word except in very limited circumstances where the speaker's moral stance is made clear with lots of stated qualifications- with no intent to offend, and with no possible indicated bias against any group that could be slighted by use of the term. This is a hostile norm of expectations that it makes conversations more difficult and less productive.

As far as I can perceive it, the majority of people haven't arrived at the conclusion that woke is a slur. When you are on the front lines of the linguistic fight, you're either gonna have to convince people that the word is hurtful, or at least convince them that if they use the word, bad things will happen to them. I'm not really convinced of either of these right now, and I hope that the majority of people are the same. After all, wokeness is a political stance, and it's pretty rare for descriptors of political stances to get a reputation as such a vile slur that we no longer use the word. After all, Nazi and Communist get thrown around as insults all the time, along with their non-insulting literal denotations.

> You are assuming the intent of the poster. Your "civil rights" example does not capture the same (ambiguous) spirit that the poster's use of "woke" captures.

I gave the benefit of the doubt and a warning that they might be misinterpreted.

> As far as I can perceive it, the majority of people haven't arrived at the conclusion that woke is a slur.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics)

If you had really given them the benefit of the doubt, you would not have implicitly shamed them for using the language they chose to use. Or explicitly shamed me for defending their choice of language.

They used terminology in a way that carries implications. If by pointing that out I brought them 'shame' then so be it (and notice how they never decided to contradict the 'if you don't care' part, so let's not give benefit of the doubt any more).

If you feel ashamed for me arguing against you, then you shouldn't as long as you were doing it out of ignorance and in good faith. However just because you are not aware of or don't believe certain things does not make them cease to exist.

(posting from cell w/ other account)

You haven't given any indication that you have considered any of my points in any meaningful way. I'm just gonna accept the fact that you want to continue your linguistic mission and disengage. Judging by your comment history you have a habit of winning wars of attrition.

Please at least consider the idea that being the censorious force in the world can worsen the quality of discussion.

> You haven't given any indication that you have considered any of my points in any meaningful way.

You are right. I need to work on not being so dismissive.

I think this correspondence would have been more appropriate and fruitful as an 'essay'/'counter-essay' instead of this social media format which tends to drive me to look for a decisive, pithy 'win'.

Sorry for railroading you and thank you for being courteous.

Thanks for taking the time to stand up to this kind of arguing. As a non-native speaker, I definitely dont have the stamina to enter a real discussion with this type of person.

Why don't you ask them what they think about your behavior in this conversation?

No, No, and No. Simply because I dont agree with language police, as a principle.

You can call things 'language police' all you want, but assumptions are based on reality and experience, and pushing back when they are obviously true is silly.

> reality ... experience ... obviously true ... silly

And you seriously believe this condescending way of talking down to people is great? Your choice, your opinion. Maybe reality will catch up, maybe you will catch up with reality, time will tell.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com