Comment by hagbard_c | Hacker News Reader

Comment by hagbard_c | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

A rose by any other name etc. The moniker may change once every few years - even A. Occasional Cortex recently agreed that 'Woke 1.0 was craaaazy' [1] - but the beast never loses its stripes. Maybe the next term will be 'Woke 2.0', maybe something else but seeing how as this terminology comes from inside the narrative generator it can not be denied that it describes something real and as such claiming that those who use such terms that have fallen by the wayside '[are] not worth listening to' is the equivalent of loudly saying NA NA NA I DON'T HEAR YOU NA NA NA.

Woke 1.0 was 'crazy' indeed, good that this can now be said. The successor will probably be just as crazy but in some different way. It most likely will be some throwback to classical marxist tropes instead of the intersectional mess which best describes 'Woke 1.0' because younger generations never experienced the reality of the Soviet bloc, never were taught the reality of life under communism in school and as such are easy targets for socialist propaganda, viz. the success of the DSA. This time it will surely work, people, real socialism has never been tried after all...

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/aug/15/aoc-wo...

it's funny because the reference to your quote of her shows it was not a quote of her

we should call that hagbardisms

If you insist on believing the story she told of that being said by 'a political friend', sure. Did you listen to the interview she gave? I did. It sounded very much like the 'politician friend' was made up from thin air to enable her to bring this quote into the conversation. It was she who produced the quote, the 'politician friend' has not been heard from. In other words, believe what you want but first listen to that interview?

it's funny you can't stop claiming to understand everything from politics but still can't imagine that there actually are other politicians (Chi Ossé's comments made the rounds before AOC repeated it) out there than your favorite target

that too should we call hagbardisms

We're talking politics here so that bit about 'claiming to understand everything from politics' is misplaced.

Call it what you want, everything needs to be turned into a meme after all. I call it 'observations' and go by those, not by narrative or attempts at memecasting.

Who is my favourite target by the way? As far as I can remember this is the first time I mentioned this politico on this - or any other - forum. Also, could you maybe say something about the actual subject here which is the grand-grand-grand-grandparent post stating that 'anyone who thinks "woke" is a valid counterpoint is not worth listening to'? You seem to be trying to do the same when it comes to what you're trying to call 'hagbardisms'. You haven't actually touched the original subject yet, what about it?

my point of view is simple:

anyone who thinks "woke" is a valid counterargument is not worth listening to

Does that include those like the mentioned politica who espouses the virtues of the next iteration of 'woke' because the first version was craaaazy? If so I do applaud you, it is indeed and best left to the historians for dissection. If not, why not?

glad to learn that you suddenly embrace any kind of compassion and solidarity, in the form of what you call the next iteration of woke

I cannot help but notice that you did not answer my question. What about is?

Also it isn't me who refers to ${whatever} as the next generation of woke, it is implied by those who refer to the past madness as woke 1.0. Where there is a 1.0 there is soon to be a 2.0, or maybe a 1.1, who knows.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com