"woke mind virus" should be an automatic ban from this site, it's a thought terminating cliche so strong, any semblance of "converse curiously" is immediately thrown out the window, into a well, down into hell, bouncing around the back of the flat earth
That would mean you cannot talk about it. You want to constrain debate. You want issues to not be discussed. The idea that any particular word should not be rendered is absurd.
"Mind Virus" is loaded and inflammatory, but "woke" is the result of people noticing a large and highly influential social movement that refuses to name itself and chafes against any outside attempt to do so. You can't have a movement that important without a name.
Woke is AAVE that had its meaning perverted by conservatives as one of the means to make attempts at pointing out structural inequality ridiculous, actually. So the purest definition of woke I can come up with is "person a conservative wants to silence through ridicule that their ideas are capable of merit".
A carefully curated list of salient examples that conservatives pretend are systemic?
Forgive me if my interest in arguing with someone who quotes "CRT in schools" (with a salient example) and an intentionally (?) crude understanding of what "defund the police" means on the website that courted far right populists[1] is rather insubstantial.
I think we're just too far apart to reconcile anything. A YouTube personality called Vaush might be your kind of rhetoric if you look for left leaning people to address the claims head on, in length. I don't have the breath for it.
The person above you compares the woke mind virus to a “sensible alternative explanation” so yeah they are kinda framing it as a thought terminating cliche.
An automatic ban is probably too harsh, a warning and instruction not to use such vague and loaded terms might be helpful to lowering the heat (regardless of what political movement the terms are for, I'd discourage accusations of "fascism" just as much as "wokeness" unless accompanied by an explicit definition)
> a warning and instruction not to use such vague and loaded terms
No. We use vague and loaded terms all the time. That's OK. That's human. Paternalism yields resentment because it treats adults like babies. Some person in some corporate office trying to teach me how to think when they themselves lack critical thinking ability is unacceptable.
Whether it is "ok" in some absolute moral sense isn't relevant in this context, which is about whether it is more in keeping with the goals of hackernews to clamp down on the use of terms which result in flamewars due to confusion and misunderstanding (and no small amount of connotations and signalling).
Words like "woke" mean different things to different people and their use is very harmful to discourse between people from opposite sides on that particular culture war. Tabooing the term and replacing it with one's intended meaning can really clear things up and prevent getting people's backs up. E.g. rather than "woke" one might use "race aware" or "tribalistic" or "injustice aware" or whatever specific meaning one intends to convey. That way you can actually be understood rather than offending people because they identify as "woke" but consider it to mean "injustice aware" rather than some negative meaning.
Tl;dr: words are for communication, use words your audience has the same understanding of
> Words like "woke" mean different things to different people and their use is very harmful to discourse between people from opposite sides on that particular culture war
Here you and I are having a civil discussion and meta-conversation. We can literally talk about how the word is used, misunderstood, weaponised, etc. Thoughtful and curious debate should be encouraged. If a word triggers behavior that is unpleasant or counter productive, we should reprimand the individuals doing so not assume nobody can use the word in a civil discussion and I for one feel I learn different perspectives that I hope make me a better person.
> words are for communication, use words your audience has the same understanding o
That’s a very narrow perspective. Not only is it not achievable in principle (meanings of words shift over time and have cultural and personal context), but the point of communication is often to build shared understanding.
I do, however, it is a valid decision to want to make certain topics off limits, because they tend to devolve into chaos and a broken community, but I would argue against a blacklist of words. We should be able to discuss porn but not share porn in this site. We should be able to debate each other on wokeness (the word and our differing perspectives) without getting disrespectful or assuming bad intent or overlooking abuse.
Maybe I’m too idealistic and you have the more practical position… so I want to be open to that possibility.
> Here you and I are having a civil discussion and meta-conversation. We can literally talk about how the word is used, misunderstood, weaponised, etc.
I'm pretty curious if you agree with them there (I've actually been meaning to get around to asking someone else for their opinion but it's still emotionally a bit difficult). (I think this subthread is dead enough that no one but you will read this)
I read it. What specifically did you hear was unacceptable - there’s no moderator comment attached to your writing so I cannot tell what they told you is unacceptable.
jumping in from the new comments page because you seem so earnest. those summations on that thread you think are unfair really don't come across as unfair summations of what you're trying to say. you call them a bald faced lie, but it's a fair reading of how what you actually wrote actually lands. what you wrote comes across as those summations. therein lies the problem. your writing doesn't land how you think it lands. there's no two ways around that. you say X, people hear Y, you say but I didn't say Y, but you really are saying Y with how you're saying X. you're trying to say Y without actually saying Y and think that if you say Y absolutely precisely enough, that Y is actually okay. so you insist you're saying X when you're saying Y, and Y simply isn't okay here. really deeply consider how you're really saying Y when you think you're saying or asking X.
take the word eugenics, for example. we've decided that's not okay. by asking modern questions around it, you think you can make it okay to support eugenics. but unfortunately words can have two meanings, and the word eugenics has picked up the meaning that non-blonde blue eyed white people are to be euthanized. thus, you can't use the word eugenics. you want it to mean one thing, but the rest of us have agreed it means this other thing, and you're left confused because you're saying X and everyone else is hearing Y because Y is what that word means to everyone else.
To add onto the prior poster (and also motivated by a reasonable likelihood that you are earnestly trying to explore precise and non-mainstream discussions online and getting frustrated that you can’t seem to without triggering <whatever negative reactions you get>).
My sad experience is that you just can’t do what you want, if what you want is most people to treat your language with the high precision you intended or to pause their emotional filters and explore some philosophical “what ifs”. You might be able to find some pure and deep thinkers in real life or private settings to explore questions highlighted in the fourth post in your link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38699727
But in public settings (including online) you mostly can’t.
You also can’t even use some words online, despite them having a very precise and innocuous meaning.
As an example:
Try to guess the reaction to something like: “when I realized Colin didn’t leave a tip, I didn’t confront him as I knew that he wasn’t going to change since that was just an inherent part of his niggardly nature.”
A human compiler, equipped with the correct dictionary definition of “niggardly” will process your sentence one way. A random person on the street, online, or in a pub is highly likely to take offense. If you insist that people are obliged to treat your sentence as if you’d said “stingy” (the definition of the race-connotation-free word “niggardly”), you’re going to be confused when many refuse.
Similarly, if you ask some of the questions from the link above among strangers in a public forum: are they asking in order to deeply explore all valid philosophies concerning them? Or are they placing poop into the pretty nice punch bowl we have here?
Many will assume and treat you as if it’s the latter, because their experience is many people do do that online, and treat you as if you’re doing that as well.
You know your intentions. Other people have to guess at them. If you communicate in a way that matches you to a pattern they have a negative reaction to, you’re going to get that reaction.
