[UltraSane]

> This was not the original meaning of woke, but it's rarely used in the original sense now. Now the pejorative sense is the dominant one. What does it mean now? I've often been asked to define both wokeness and political correctness by people who think they're meaningless labels, so I will. They both have the same definition:

    An aggressively performative focus on social justice. 

In other words, it's people being prigs about social justice. And that's the real problem — the performativeness, not the social justice.

[jordigh]

It bothers me so much that Paul Graham people thinks it's performative. He can't imagine anyone actually, sincerely holding those beliefs, because he doesn't hold them himself. If someone is trying to modify their beliefs and then their behaviour, say, by mild self-censorship, he's got a list of insults ready for that person trying to better themselves: prig, politically correct, woke.

It's not performative. We really do believe that there are injustices and that if we can begin by changing the language, we can change the behaviour.

Just because Paul Graham can't imagine himself sincerely believing in self improvement followed by social improvement doesn't mean we don't believe it in ourselves.

[UltraSane]

You can hold the beliefs without being "performative"

A perfect example is when gay marriage was illegal and some straight people loudly announced that they wouldn't get married until gay people could.

OK. Your motives are good but how exactly is this going to help legalize gay marriage? And why did the world need to know about it?

[bpt3]

While your example is interesting, I would at least give those people some credit for taking the action they could (even if it is largely pointless as you said).

I think a better analogy is people who would criticize other heterosexual couples for getting married when homosexual couples could not, as it is both pointless and needlessly antagonistic.

[UltraSane]

Except the goal of this kind of behavior is not actual change but proving to the world you are "morally superior" by your chosen system of morality.

[moskie]

Would you say the same about people joining picket lines and marches? Any sort of peaceful protest?

Also, you're projecting. You don't (and can't) know what a person's true goals are. Framing these actions as them communicating they are morally superior to someone (you?) is a thought in that other person's head, not the protestors. Maybe these straight people truly believe this form of protest (not getting married) will bring attention to a cause and maybe change some people's minds. Did it? Who knows. But good on them for at least trying.

[layer8]

Charitably, PG refers to the policing part as performative. He’s probably fine with what you describe as sincere self-improvement, but not when people start wanting to police everyone else.

[bpt3]

You don't understand the difference between attempting to improve yourself and aggressively applying your definitions of words and morally acceptable behavior to others without any serious thought.

Beginning by changing the language is so fundamentally flawed that I have a hard time believing you seriously think it could ever be effective.