← Back to context

Comment by soheil

5 days ago

> he'd create offense

That's sort of the point of the essay, he compares woke to a religion and explores how companies deal with various religious beliefs at work, ie: no one religion is ever allowed to suppress others no matter how righteous its believers feel or offended they may become.

I'm not sure why that's a bad thing or would create "confusion" in your mind.

The essay does much more than that. It makes a number of claims that are at best debatable and at worst unfounded, such as:

* The origin of woke-ism is university humanities departments

* Musk succeeded in "neutralising" wokeness on Twitter without censoring left-wing voices.

* Racism is (or should be) independent of linguistic context.

* That wokeness is a serious problem in the US.

He also makes liberal use of argument from incredulity, does not provide any facts, figures or citations to back up his claims, and suggests some very dubious moral standpoints (that it is wrong for university staff to get reported for sexual harassment).

That said, I do somewhat agree with you when you say "I don't think what pg is saying is anything new". In fact, he's never really said anything new, and he's always been prone to fallacious thinking. What's happened here is that he's exposed this more than ever before.