Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Hanlon's razor applies. I don't believe that most of the people doing this are motivated by malign intent. Some are, some people really get off on telling others what to do, getting people fired, etc. But most truly believe they they are doing a service to minority groups.

In your example of "Latinx" for example, if you are a white person who doesn't speak Spanish but you really want to help improve society, it probably sounds like a great idea! Put women and men on an equal footing. It's very easy to walk through a field of landmines if you don't know there's any landmines there. It's very easy to be an activist if you don't know anything at all about the world.

It's better to attack the idea than the people. Push back on that Overton window. Rename your main branch to master. Call someone a Karen.



I think that the rationalization to self is indeed about goodwill. But the monkeybrain does love to elevate self above others, and I find that the people who write these are, to some degree, incapable of separating the motivations of true societal benefit and oneselves' lust for moral superiority from each other. This power motivation is so strongly encoded within us that if you're not explicitly aware of how its guiding your actions you WILL fall prey to it.


I agree.

My generous take is that whoever wants to go this deep towards language policing has experienced real trauma that has debilitated them. That's something I can view compassionately.

But perhaps in having been traumatized and victimized, they view their identity as primarily a victim, because they don't know how to move on from or get over or heal from the trauma. And in an attempt to "redeem" their past, they want to create a landscape in which they can use their victimhood to accrue, wield, and exercise power, via guilt-tripping others, shaming others, and using their traumas and sufferings (again, something I can relate and sympathize and empathize with) as "street-cred" to flex on others who are all part of those who are "contributing to the traumatic systems that have harmed people like them."

On the flipside, though, are people who refuse to acknowledge their traumas, because they've bought into a false belief system that to be hurt by life means you're weak, and to be weak means you don't deserve respect and the rewards of society and that you're somehow inferior to those who haven't been traumatized or taken advantage of, etc.

I feel like both are two sides of the same coin. One becomes all-consumed with their traumas. The other sticks their head in the sand. The former wants to police and control everyone by using their traumas as a means to jockey for power over others. The latter often shits on people who talk about any and all trauma – even in healthy ways – because to admit it in themselves means they're somehow lesser-than and inferior, weak and unworthy.

That seems to be the extreme ends of this whole thing. But healing from traumas seems to be kind of the third way, so to speak, and an uncomfortable journey that upends both extremes, without being a "meeting in the middle" type of proposed solution.

Just sharing some thoughts.


I would say that McCarthy and his acolytes, was also motivated to do good (protect America).

The villagers burning 'witches' were motivated to do good (protect the village, and incidentally get their neighbours lands / jobs ... hmmm)

The students in the Cultural Revolution in China were motivated to do good (bring us forward into the utopia ... hmmm).

There is a nice saying, present in many languages: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".

And while I think intention does actually matter (vs. the a frequent claim by the woke), results matter more. (Intention matters because, e.g., it influences how you treat the action.)




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: