Interesting Links for 19-03-2024

1. Visualising black holes by having one eat 4 million stars over New York

(tags:space video )

2. Edinburgh Council installs new slavery plaque at Edinburgh's Melville Monument

(tags:slavery edinburgh scotland history )

3. Paris cycling numbers double in one year

(tags:cycling bicycles transport Paris France )

4. FAQ on a genetically modified bacterium that outcompetes the bacteria that cause tooth decay

(tags:teeth bacteria genetics )

5. How do neural networks learn? A mathematical formula explains how they detect relevant patterns

(tags:neurons ai )

6. DUP aims to veto new EU law from applying in Northern Ireland

(tags:europe uk NorthernIreland doom )

Defining "Woke"

Aaaaages ago, mountainkiss sent me the article "Woke" is a new ideology and its proponents should admit it. And I disagreed so strenuously with the "It's new!" part of the article that my grumpiness made her think that I thought the whole article was worthless. Which it is not. Because one of the things it does is try to define different aspects of the "Woke" movement, to make it clear what it is. At the time I told her that at some point I'd get around to writing up my opinions of the whole piece, and how it matched up with my experience/understanding.

And then I didn't get enough sleep for about a year, and did nothing with it. And then it came back up again in discussion, and I went and read it again, and had thoughts over lunchtime, and so here you are.

Note: My writing here is informal, and this was quickly written between dozens of other things I'm doing. I'm delighted to be told where I'm wrong about something factual, but please don't nitpick over technicalities.

Second note: I am well aware of the history of the term, and how it's changed over time. I'm predominantly thinking about the use between 2015 and 2019, as that's what the article I'm responding to was clearly doing.

Third note: Where the original section heading was written in a way that might be considered impenetrable I've put a quote underneath from that section to hopefully better explain what they meant.

1) "Woke" emphasises identitarian deference

Of course it is true that the views of women should carry more weight in debates over abortion, and of course people who experience racism should be part of any conversation about racism.

But what separates out the “woke” view from boring, normie liberalism is when an appeal to “lived experience” is seen as an ultimate trump card in a debate.

I do think you'll find some people who believe that it's a total trump card. But I think you'll find plenty of woke people who will agree that different members of a minority will have different opinions, different experiences, and different approaches, and that you can't just pull out one woman from your binder, get her to express an opinion, and declare victory in the argument of "What counts as sexist".

My verdict: Yes, amongst people who are recently converted, or very young, but I don't see that much of it.

2) “Woke” prioritises harm reduction over free speech
Absolutely. No doubt about it. But that shouldn't be a surprise, society has always had some limits on free speech, and when people see the long-term effect of letting people shout obscenities, or organise hatred against minorities, they may well decide that harm reduction is more important.

My verdict: It absolutely does, although how much it prioritises it will vary from person to person.

3) “Woke” is totalising

This is (obviously) a real thing that happens and an “intersectional” view can be a useful framework for understanding how different “vectors of oppression” can overlap and multiply the difficulties that people face. However, it also does something else: It makes politics totalising, and makes it harder for the ideologically “woke” to form broader political coalitions.

Yes, definitely. Part of it is realising that the goal is not to switch your favoured group from the oppressed side to the oppressor side, but to prevent oppression. If the feminists are happy to throw the working class under the bus to get what they want, the working class are happy to throw ethnic minorities under the bus to get what they want, and the ethnic minorities are happy to throw the women under the bus to get what they want, then the chances are that none of them are going to get what they want. This kind of thing was really really common in the 60s, with women being told that as soon as we had communism women wouldn't be oppressed (so please stop making a fuss and work on the Class War instead of pushing for Women's Lib). Either we all work out how to make things better for each other, and to spread empathy wider, supporting each other even when we won't personally gain from it, or we will all go to hell in the same handbasket.

My verdict: Absolutely, this is core to Wokery.

4) “Woke” is communitarian

Where “woke” ideology differs is that it pushes this equilibrium further towards a communitarian conception of rights. We can see this in terms of how identity characteristics are foregrounded, and the way in which adherents view their relationship to other humans in terms of group membership.

I think that there's a fundamental misunderstanding here. You don't get special rights because you're in a group. Wokery is about the right not be oppressed, and recognises that different groups are oppressed in different ways. It's the inverse of "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread."

So identity groupings are treated as important, but largely in terms of how much sympathy/help people might need. The groups that are considered important from a wokeness point of view are considered important because they are groups that are viewed as targetted for oppression (or end up oppressed because of the design of society).

Is it important that someone is a trainspotter? Almost certainly not (Unless we're using that as a shortcut for "Is autistic", which we probably shouldn't). Is it important that someone is a lesbian? Absolutely, insofar as they may face increased difficulties in life because of it, and we should be aware of how the design of society affects them.

So, do lesbians get their rights from membership of The Lesbian Group? Or do they get extra attention purely to ensure that they get the same rights as everyone else? The woke would definitely say the latter.

Verdict: I would say absolutely not. I can see how people come to that conclusion, but I think it's a misreading of the situation.

5) “Woke” is sceptical of ‘progress’
Yes and no. I think that there is a general acceptance that things are less bad in many ways. But also that many, many people have been "left behind", that there are still many, many issues, and that the rising tide that lifts enough boats to prevent revolution, while leaving the worst off to drown is not a universally good thing. I think a certain amount of scepticism is a good thing, and you can definitely have that while being grateful that things are better than they were.

Verdict: Somewhat. You'll see more scepticism in the newly converted and people whose background means they've seen the worst of things.

6) “Woke” prioritises right-side norms over accuracy norms

For example, in a community of political activists or football fans, it may be more important to be on the “right side” of a debate: There is the risk of a social penalty that makes it much harder to concede that the other side made a good point, or the referee’s decision to award the other team a penalty was correct, because it will invite the ire of your friends and colleagues.

Absolutely, and this is a bad thing. Not everyone does it, it may well be that no more than the human average does it, but it is still bad. If you don't own your mistakes then you can't learn from them.

Verdict: Largely yes, with the proviso that I would *love* to know how much this happens across all of society, and whether Woke people are any worse/better than anyone else.

Overall
There is absolutely a chunk of truth in the article, and I think it makes a good starting point for discussion. Thinking about why it was wrong (where I thought it was) was a helpful exercise in itself.

I do think that the writer was living in a bubble (the way he refers to a liberal consensus makes that clear), and that affects the slant he puts on things. But I don't think he's deliberately mischaracterising things, and I think that seeing how Wokery looks from that side of things is interesting and useful.

I also think that there's an issue where the recent converts to a cause tend to be more black and white in their thinking about it and louder in their defense of it. Which means that the impression you get of a group is going to be coloured by their take on things.