Hacker News Reader

Comment by galaxyLogic | Hacker News Reader

The people who cry about "Wokism" never clearly define what they mean by that term. It is just a way for them to use a pejorative term without actually saying what it is they are against.

Are they against people who demand equal justice? Are they against people who demand voting rights? They don't say so.

They don't have to say so because all they need to do is have a tantrum about "Wokism". Not a very science-based approach but really just an Ad Hominem against people who say being awake is a good thing.

View on HN

Its a term for manufactured moral conformity.

Morality is good. Conformity is bad if it is in appearance. Manufactured moral conformity is problematic.

Why not call that "MMC"? Why is it called "Woke"?

It's an attempt to poison the well of leftist discourse by co-opting and inverting its terminology, rendering it self-defeating. It seems to be a common tactic by the right, and surprisingly effective. It's now all but impossible to use the word "woke" in good faith because it only communicates the pejorative images created by the right.

I've seen entire threads debating the meaning of "woke" and the vast majority of them were bad-faith definitions, and anyone mentioning the actual etymology or cultural context of the term would be shouted down and told they were simply incorrect. The sheer amount of aggression and effort that's been put into the destruction of this one word is fascinating to see.

I guess it's a similar thing as "Fake News". Yes there are lots of fake news but it is the providers of actual fake news that mostly cry about that. It is those who say they are simply providing "Alternate Facts". Not facts but alternate facts.

It is "projection" right? Co-opt the terms to make them meaningless. I wonder if there are studies or books about it, and how the society at large could fight back against dis-information.

probably the most core example would be trans rights. For example, the NYT and other outfits sort of went along with the idea that "trans men are men, even biologically speaking" but have sort of moved away from that. For example read the ongoing coverage about nontraditional genders in sports competitions, the tone has cghange significantly over the past 5 years (more backpressure).

I think for a bit the Times was basically writing whatever trans activists were tweeting, treating it like the literal truth, and got burned more than once and decided to move back to a more centrist "we support trans rights but there are limits, and saying so doesn't mean we're evil"

I think you are right. But why don't they say they are against "Trans Rights" rather than against "Woke". I still think being against "Woke" means you don't want to say what it is you are against.

"Woke" is a pejorative term, not a term with a specific meaning.

"Woke" is an umbrella term, a halo. Which becomes convenient, being for or against the halo lets to be for or against all kinds of things within it without needing to be explicit. So by being against some silly aspects of trans rights, calling those woke also lets you nod and wink being against race rights.

I recently encountered the phrase "peanut butter term," although not in the context of "wokeness" specifically, to refer to a label that will stick to and spread all over just about anything. I think its a useful companion or alternative to "umbrella term."

The person he's replying to seems to have a faily clear definition of wokeism.

He think "wokeism" is what the American establishment use to undermine Trump:

> NYT is transitioning from wokism to statism.

> Because the US establishment doesn’t want domestic chaos anymore. They’re in control.

> So you’ll see less riots calling for abolishing police, more funding for riot police.

> Less on toxic masculinity, more on troops for foreign wars.

Which is refreshingly clear, even if just as out of touch with any kind of recognisable reality as most invocations of "woke" from the right.

I see, so "Wokism" really means "anti-Trump" . Why didn't they say so.

I wouldn't consider myself right wing, but a good faith definition of the way the right see it might be an overemphasis on issues related to race, gender and sexual orientation, at the expense of shared American values.

A less good faith way to define it would be it means "whatever gets people to the voting booths."

I think by "shared American values" you mean values held by > 50% of Americans. But "issues related to race, gender and sexual orientation" really are issues minorities are facing. And I don't believe > 50% Americans are against minorities having more rights. Are they?

No, but if you take something like affirmative action (a classic boogeyman of the right), it's possible for everyone to have reasonable but contradictory views:

The right would say: discrimination on race/gender is wrong, and so affirmative action is wrong.

The left would say: historical injustices have left certain people with significant systemic disadvantages, and our systems need to actively correct for that to achieve a fair society.

I think both are reasonable places to come from, and more importantly come from a place of positive intent. But also lead to contradictory actions.

False equivalencies is what the people who have the power and capital often promote. But in the end it is what the large majority of the society wants that matters, if only we could be better informed about what benefits us all. Then again the other side does not want people to be better informed. Banning books etc. :-)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com