> what do you believe to be "the right take on wokeness"?

That's a fair question, and I'll answer it. Admittedly, I thought-policed Paul Graham when I said that he had the wrong take on wokeness, taking exactly the stance that he called out. I must choose my words carefully here, because whatever I say is likely to offend someone. I'll get to that in a moment.

But first, let's look at the literal definition of woke, to try to avoid misinterpretation:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/woke

1 chiefly US slang
a: aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)
b: reflecting the attitudes of woke people
2 disapproving: politically liberal or progressive (as in matters of racial and social justice) especially in a way that is considered unreasonable or extreme

I'm familiar with both of these, but feel that pg was voicing his disapproval of wokeness, as in definition 2. Which is an attack on my values, because like I said, I identify as woke and progressive, and feel that criticisms of those are rooted in prejudice and intolerance. Since wokeness focuses on justice, pg's focus seems to be on libertarian values. My focus might be deemed justitarian - if that word existed.

Before I knew what woke meant, I thought it was a reference to the Matrix movies. That awakening was about seeing the simulation, how all of this is a construct of the human mind with its habits and traditions, completely arbitrary but with subjugation as a primary goal. And that people who haven't awakened yet are effectively non-player characters (NPCs), instruments of the status quo who unwittingly perpetuate it and its inequities.

That probably came from my roots growing up in a small town of 10,000 people in the northwestern US in the 1980s. I was a computer geek who got bullied by athletes and children of ranchers who didn't know what to make of me. I felt profoundly alone and alienated. But I wasn't wrong, I just felt like a loser. And they weren't right, they just felt like winners.

When we look around at our leaders today, who do we see? Are they people who came from adversity and now pay it forward for others? Or did they win the internet lottery and pull up the ladder behind them? The important question here is: are they right, or do they just assume they are because they won? The answer to this defines the status quo.

-

So I feel that the right take on wokeness is to quite literally be woke and not act like an NPC on the side of the oppressor. A person can write in the most eloquent fashion with an air of impeccability but still be tactless. Which is just exactly what pg did.

I've never met him, but I'm certain that for the most part he's a decent person. I'd even wager that there's no discrimination in his hiring practices, for example. But he's the beneficiary of privilege as a middle-aged white man. There is power imbalance at play in his status. To pretend otherwise is an insult to people who have experienced discrimination or been otherwise suppressed in achieving their own success.

Specifically, the right way to practice wokeness is to conduct oneself in a manner which recognizes injustice without perpetuating it. What does that look like? It means never mentioning aspects of someone's personal identity or things about them that can't be changed, while being an ally to reform the systems of control that undermine them for those traits anyway.

For example, in a group with multiple races, creeds, genders, sexual orientations, differing physical abilities, ages, etc, in polite conversation one should never mention anything having to do with those things. No assumptions should be made about someone's familiarity with or stance on an issue simply because of their demographics. Everyone in the group should be given equal respect for their dignity. The group achieves power that overcomes injustice against any one member.

The key is not to concern ourselves with maintaining our image if we fail to conform to contemporary etiquette around wokeism, but to treat others as they wish to be treated and practice the golden rule so that we don't have to.

How is that different than what pg said? After all, treating everyone the same way is admirable. Why might he feel like he's walking on egg shells while I don't share his cognitive dissonance? Because I don't feel threatened by wokeism or its implications for how I got to where I am and why that might drive a need in me to project my criticism of it.

-

It's important here to distinguish between equality and equity. For example, if a company board has 9 men and 1 woman, but there are an equal number of men and women working for the company, then giving the woman 10% of the speaking time may be equal but probably isn't equitable. If I'm a board member, I'm going to put effort towards giving the woman more speaking time. I'll likely sacrifice some of my own time to achieve that. And most importantly, I'll call out other members of the board who talk over her or otherwise treat her disrespectfully, so that anyone on the fence about an issue can consider my offering in their own vote and hopefully join us in overcoming inequity.

Let's talk about why I didn't say 9 women and 1 man in my example. It's because the realities of the world in these times may make that come across as condescending. Injustice is asymmetric. This is why "both sides" and "not all men" statements may have some basis in fact but carry prejudice. Maybe men are underrepresented in other places, but in most cases the board room isn't one of them.

-

Here's where we get to the part where I've offended someone. There are countless hardworking white men who feel like they got a raw deal in life, and I'm one of them. Life can be brutally hard and unfair. My demographic shoulders insults and injustices that too often lead to a lifetime of self-doubt and self-harm. We can't always articulate the mental, emotional and physical pain we endure. That can cause us to become self-absorbed and ego-driven. Diving deep inside our misfortune and letting ourselves be vulnerable feels undignified, so we put it behind us and do our best to provide for our families, to work hard and be happy.

But it's precisely for those reasons that I speak out against injustice. Because as hard as I had it, it could have been worse. Why should it be worse? Why in the world would I want to inflict injustice on others? Revenge? A sense of control? That feeling of control would be me feeding off the same emotional energy that others used to hurt me.

That's what I meant about losing my heroes. People who I thought would work to change the status quo just sold out. Being woke means promoting self-awareness and changing one's mind when presented with new information. If the people we hold in high regard were to read all of this and still subscribe to the idea that wokeism is bad like pg was suggesting, then do they really deserve our esteem anymore?