This doesn’t really feel like a serious attempt to think about what wokeness is or how to think about its impact. To start by defining it as an excessive focus on race and gender almost makes it tautological to say it’s a problem. Was the push for gay marriage woke or not, and if not, why wasn’t it? What about the impact of the ‘woke’ outside the US, don’t most countries need to be more woke? Have woke people decreased X-risk by increasing the salience of climate change, and doesn’t this more than make up for a lot of the harms of woke? I’d like to see you steelman the woke position and think about the impact of wokeness, this felt like a diatribe and IMO you could write a much better piece on this.
I think generally people don't think that focus on climate change or legalization of gay marriage is wokeness. But if it is then my view would be "okay, many parts of wokeness are very good, but the excesses are very bad and a serious risk, not just some insignificant problem." I wasn't intending to argue that wokeness, which is often pretty vague, is bad all things considered--I'd imagine that would depend greatly on how you define it, and different definitions would differ. My claim was primarily that there are serious harms to the excesses of it, and these harms are real and significant. But maybe I'll write an article steelmanning wokeness at some point.
I think the definition he gives is useful because it allows us to focus on the problem. We don't have to be woke in order to defend gay marriage or fight against climate change by this definition. Although woke people probably disproportionately do these things, they can still be done without wokeness.
No; I oppose DEI trainings. James Lindsay is nuts, though it's hard to think of examples on hand. Jesse and Katie of blocked and reported have sometimes discussed this.
Being less of an issue than zoning does not make something a small issue. Abolishing the police is lumped in because it's pushed by lots of deranged and confused leftists--obviously when David Friedman pushes abolishing the police and replacing them with private security firms, that is not woke.
I tend to agree that this does not belong in the same category as the other things you described. Despite the view often being adopted uncritically, I think it is a serious policy proposal. Most other examples of wokeness, such as cancelling or firings do not take the form of serious political proposals but rather some twisted sort of 'personal accountability'. I think the focus on 'personal betterment' is also apparent in the DEI trainings. This sort of personal moralization, I think, is the major unifying trait of "wokeness".
This doesn’t really feel like a serious attempt to think about what wokeness is or how to think about its impact. To start by defining it as an excessive focus on race and gender almost makes it tautological to say it’s a problem. Was the push for gay marriage woke or not, and if not, why wasn’t it? What about the impact of the ‘woke’ outside the US, don’t most countries need to be more woke? Have woke people decreased X-risk by increasing the salience of climate change, and doesn’t this more than make up for a lot of the harms of woke? I’d like to see you steelman the woke position and think about the impact of wokeness, this felt like a diatribe and IMO you could write a much better piece on this.
I think generally people don't think that focus on climate change or legalization of gay marriage is wokeness. But if it is then my view would be "okay, many parts of wokeness are very good, but the excesses are very bad and a serious risk, not just some insignificant problem." I wasn't intending to argue that wokeness, which is often pretty vague, is bad all things considered--I'd imagine that would depend greatly on how you define it, and different definitions would differ. My claim was primarily that there are serious harms to the excesses of it, and these harms are real and significant. But maybe I'll write an article steelmanning wokeness at some point.
I think the definition he gives is useful because it allows us to focus on the problem. We don't have to be woke in order to defend gay marriage or fight against climate change by this definition. Although woke people probably disproportionately do these things, they can still be done without wokeness.
One of the best articles criticizing wokeness out there. Well done!
Yeah seems right. I think there are some positives of wokeness:
- Trying to discuss women's desires better
- Better LGBT+ policy
What is the issue with James lindsay,and is it wrong if someone opposes dei trainings
No; I oppose DEI trainings. James Lindsay is nuts, though it's hard to think of examples on hand. Jesse and Katie of blocked and reported have sometimes discussed this.
"[Wokeness] also makes people more racist and hinders the fight for racial equality."
What does a non-woke fight for racial equality look like? Genuine question.
Being less of an issue than zoning does not make something a small issue. Abolishing the police is lumped in because it's pushed by lots of deranged and confused leftists--obviously when David Friedman pushes abolishing the police and replacing them with private security firms, that is not woke.
I tend to agree that this does not belong in the same category as the other things you described. Despite the view often being adopted uncritically, I think it is a serious policy proposal. Most other examples of wokeness, such as cancelling or firings do not take the form of serious political proposals but rather some twisted sort of 'personal accountability'. I think the focus on 'personal betterment' is also apparent in the DEI trainings. This sort of personal moralization, I think, is the major unifying trait of "wokeness".