[cynicalkane]

> "If you think a specific statement was wrong, harmful, or dishonest, then explain why"

> someone picks a specific statement

> "If the use of a single phrase... is enough to make you dismiss someone entirely"

Bro, you asked for a specific statement. Was GP actually supposed to provide N specific statements, where N is a hidden number known only to you?

[sanity]

How was that "wrong, harmful, or dishonest" - specifically?

[cynicalkane]

Why would I answer that when you already said one statement being wrong doesn't matter? If one statement being wrong doesn't matter then why are you changing your mind and asking? Would there be any point in replying?

I've met a lot of folks in software who think contradicting themselves in order to "gotcha" the other person is some form of being clever. You can't really have success reasoning them out of it; they think being incorrigible is the same as winning.

[sanity]

> Why would I answer that when you already said one statement being wrong doesn't matter?

I never said that.

[pessimizer]

You don't understand. All they have to do is repeat what you've said with a snarky tone, tag it with an extreme insult, then imply that it makes you unfit to be employed, even if you are self-employed. Your duty is to apologize, and promise to do better.

Specificity is literally gaslighting.

[outside2344]

Your goal, I think, is to build a movement around Freenet.

How does bringing in "the woke mind virus" or "virtue signaling" into a technical conversation help build your movement vs. cause people to tune out?

[sanity]

I didn't bring in anything, someone dug up and linked to 3-year-old out of context posts to a mailing list - I explained the context.

[angoragoats]

It's wrong because a "woke mind virus" literally doesn't exist, and you just made up the concept, or more likely appropriated it from a Nazi-salute-slinging billionaire whose brain has turned to mush.

It's dishonest because it pretends that people behaving in a way that you don't like are somehow infected by some (literal or metaphorical) contagion, when I am not aware of any evidence that this is the case.

I'd be delighted to be proven wrong on either of the above with studies or other serious sources. I'll wait.

[sanity]

It refers to Critical Social Justice ideology. There are entire books, academic papers, and debates about it from across the political spectrum.

[angoragoats]

I understand what Critical Social Justice is, and it is not in any way a virus either literally or figuratively. Perhaps I wasn't clear, but I was asking for sources establishing that such a thing as a "woke mind virus" exists. I doubt there are any serious sources which frame critical social justice as such, but once again I'd love to be proven wrong on this. I'm still waiting.

[unconed]

Woke lost, because it infected companies, universities and other organizations. It prompted entitled idiots like cited above to go into projects started by others, assume eminent domain, and attempt to take it over with slander and defamation. Always with the same script, pretending to defend while engaged in an unprovoked and drawn out attack.

See the cases of:

- The Ada Initiative

- DongleGate

- James Damore

- Bret Weinstein and Evergreen state (there's even a documentary by Mike Nayna about this)

Just to name a few.

Hyperventilating over the phrase "woke mind virus" or calling Musk a nazi a few dozen more times will not work.

You're the square, and your favored ideology lost.

We now even have BlueSky serving as the verifiable echo chamber of the idiots, and it's absolutely hilarious how they just can't stop attacking each other over there.

Calling for sources while questioning one of the most visible forms of social activism of the last decade is pure gaslighting btw.

[angoragoats]

More claims without sources? Useless.

And no, asking for sources is not gaslighting, no matter how much you say it is. It’s important to me that my beliefs are backed by evidence, and so you’ll have to forgive me that I just can’t assume that “a woke mind virus is a thing that exists” is a valid claim.

@sanity posted a sibling reply which I can’t reply to because it’s [dead] for some reason. In that reply they do give a couple of examples of recent literature that they say supports their claim. I will freely admit I’m not familiar with the work they’re citing so I’m going to look into it. Upon a brief look at a summary of the Lukianoff and Haidt work, I don’t think it actually addresses the claim which I was asking for sources for, but I will reserve judgment until I read it.