I'm not sure what's up with these people who go around commenting asking people to "define X" or "define Y" or "cite Z", but IMO it seems they generally have nothing interesting to say and aren't worth responding to. Just my 2c.

Many arguments boil down to the definition of a word. Talking about definitions seems worthwhile.

We've all heard there are facts and opinions, but there's a 3rd category I think: definitions.

> Many arguments boil down to the definition of a word.

And this is awful :(

It's normally the Worst Argument in the World: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yCWPkLi8wJvewPbEp/the-noncen...

Arguing about whether a definition is particularly useful or outlines a cluster of similar things can be good, but it's rare.

The mods deleted the other thread, but basically what this guy was doing was Sealioning: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

Certainly sometimes it's good to debate a word but this crossed the line into incessant requests for people to do work to come up with ever more definitions and citations.

My issue is with your style of debate, because it takes work to come up with these definitions and citations that you will inevitably disagree with. It's a waste of time. To imply that this means I am against civil rights, women's suffrage, and free speech... all I can say is go fuck yourself.

Flamewar comments like this are obviously completely unacceptable and will get you banned here. I'm not going to ban you right now, because you haven't been using HN primarily for this. Please don't do it again.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Ouch, abuse? That usually means you have run out of arguments. Well, point proved, anyway.

We've banned this account for using HN primarily (exclusively?) for flamewar and ideological battle. That's not allowed here, regardless of ideology, because it destroys what this site is supposed to be for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I felt your definition was spot on. Thanks.

Anything relating to equity, diversity or inclusion.

Still waiting for that citation for performance and wokeism but I guess I will never see it.

I get the feeling you've misunderstood my comment.

From my perspective you asked "What does woke mean?" and I drew from my personal experience to answer how I have seen it used. The examples I choose of pronouns in signatures and having a BLM position were very common ones that also occurred at my current company.

Does that make sense now? I'm not actually sure what you want a citation on... that people push for pronouns in email signatures? That this does not have a direct and obvious link to workplace performance? That pushing for such was unheard of in 2001? That this is how people use the word "woke"?