What in the fuck is this word salad?

I am sorry, I am not a native English speaker, do you have a hard time understanding any particular part of what I wrote? I am happy to expand.

Edit: Congratulation HN on your brilliant policy that prevents me from responding to any of the comments under my post (looks like I got throttled, so editing the post is the only thing I can now do).

"So what often happens in political discussions on HN is 1) a person, such as yourself, posts dissenting views in response to several messages, 2) those messages are heavily downvoted by a brigade of users, 3) the person's account is rate-limited or shadowbanned, 4) the brigade freely posts comments against the dissenter because, being many users, each only posting one or two messages, and being of the censorious brigade (the dissenters usually oppose censorship and don't downvote for disagreement--see how even one GitHub user couldn't resist drive-by down-thumbing your comment), their comments don't get downvoted, so they don't get rate-limited.

The end result is, very predictably, a form of mob censorship. And since HN approves of downvoting for disagreement, nothing is done to stop it." https://github.com/minimaxir/hacker-news-undocumented/issues...

Sometimes people like to say "this is nonsense" to mean they don't like something.

Though for wokeness, you also run into supporters who say it "doesn't exist", by which they mean it's good (in a "it's just common sense" way).

Define “wokeness”.

I don't need to; that's not how language works. But for foreign readers let's say "the name of a US political tendency".

Also, my post wasn't a criticism of it and I don't even disagree with it (fcvo "it").

Whether you agree with it or not, it isn't word salad. In fact, it is quite well written.

Except as a sibling poster points out, for every 1 job posting using the word folk, there are about 80 using the word people.

So really it’s the anti-“woke” crowd are unable to look at anything without feeling oppressed by the “woke”.

Having just one job posting use the word "comrades" out of 80 using "people" would still be noteworthy, despite the low frequency, due to the loaded nature of the word.

That's exactly the situation we are seeing with the word "folks" (or "folx"). The word IS increasing in usage despite what some people are trying to tell us https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=folks&year_sta...

Edit: Congratulation HN on your brilliant policy that prevents me from responding to any of the comments under my post (looks like I got throttled, so editing the post is the only thing I can now do).

"So what often happens in political discussions on HN is 1) a person, such as yourself, posts dissenting views in response to several messages, 2) those messages are heavily downvoted by a brigade of users, 3) the person's account is rate-limited or shadowbanned, 4) the brigade freely posts comments against the dissenter because, being many users, each only posting one or two messages, and being of the censorious brigade (the dissenters usually oppose censorship and don't downvote for disagreement--see how even one GitHub user couldn't resist drive-by down-thumbing your comment), their comments don't get downvoted, so they don't get rate-limited.

The end result is, very predictably, a form of mob censorship. And since HN approves of downvoting for disagreement, nothing is done to stop it." https://github.com/minimaxir/hacker-news-undocumented/issues...

I think a more likely explanation is that President Obama used to frequently say “folks” in his speeches, probably in an effort to sound more colloquial/friendly. My guess is that many more people would be influenced by this than the smaller group of online people who get weirdly fixated on woke discourse.

"Folks" usage peaking in 2013 kinda throws cold water on your woke theory.

> The word IS increasing

Did you even look at your own graph?

You've been abusively posting copy-pasted offtopic stuff. If you keep doing that, we're going to have to ban you. I don't want to ban you, so please stop. (Edit: please see the note at the bottom of this comment, because you're clearly over the bannable line right now.)

Your account is rate limited because you get involved in flamewars and use HN for ideological battle. That's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. We've asked you to stop more than once:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34030923 (Dec 2022)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33819680 (Dec 2022)

Do you really think we should not moderate this place? That would burn it to a crisp and leave it unrecognizable. It's our job not to let that happen. Rate limits are one of the few software ways I know of that help with that.

Edit: It looks like you've not only been breaking the guidelines; you've been using HN primarily for ideological battle. That's one line at which we ban accounts. See https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... for past explanation about this, and (if you don't want to be banned), please stop.

(No, this has nothing to do with which ideology you're for or against. We don't care. What we care about is not letting ideological passions destroy this community.)

> "Folks" is not a new word, but an old one that has been reclaimed by social justice, queer and academic communities.

I'm from the south, in the US. Folks is just another way to say people. End of story. The people I've heard use the term "folks" are kind older people with a thick southern drawl. I also hear corporate managers use the term to refer to a group of people. I also hear young adults use it to refer to a group of people...

On second thought, I don't think someone using the term "folks" has ever been used to signal anything more than them referring to a group of people. (Also, I feel like I should mention I'm conservative, and it has never crossed my mind to think somebody using the word folks is "woke" or "antiwoke")

It is absolutely correct that the word is still alive and well in the south of the US. But the issue we are discussing is about it being re-appropriated by the HR departments and the social justice "folks" and that is a process that absolutely happens.

https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-folks/

or my other comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34589768

I think you need to really begin to critically question your sources. Every single link on that source you posted links to other articles on the same website. Talk about circular logic. At the end of the article, they finally show the actual quotes using the term "folks", and there's absolutely nothing nefarious or any sort of hidden meaning in the usage. This whole argument is grasping at non-existent straws.

Once again, that website has nothing of substance. It pulled a couple random quotes from "woke" literature that used the word folks and then made a grand conspiracy about how there's some sort of secret meaning behind the term. The term "folks" is still alive and well everywhere and has no double meaning associated with it whatsoever. What you're doing here is equivalent to what the "woke" did by trying to convince people the OK symbol really means you're a white supremacist[0]. Both of these are delusions, in every sense of the word.

One last thing, if anyone ever tries to convince you there's a grand conspiracy at the top echelons of society, where the elites are actively doing this one thing to control the masses, they're probably deluded. Hanlon's razor typically applies in these cases: never apply to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

[0]: https://www.npr.org/2019/09/26/764728163/the-ok-hand-gesture...

That's what I associate the word with too, as well as the phrase "howdy folks" --- it's very typical of southern US English and has basically no political connotation.

What is a "luxury belief" exactly?

There is a link in the comment that explains just that to be honest. But here is a better source: https://robkhenderson.substack.com/p/status-symbols-and-the-...

Thanks. So yeah what parent wrote about "trans women being women" being a luxury belief is nonsense. How would it "inflict costs on the lower class"?

This belief, when realized upon women's prisons, which house mostly working-class women, ends up with males being incarcerated in such prisons, with predictable results: sexual assault, rape, impregnation - and a pervasive fear of all these being inflicted. A terrible cost for imprisoned women to bear, in the name of inclusivity.

> This belief, when realized upon women's prisons, which house mostly working-class women, ends up with males being incarcerated in such prisons, with predictable results: sexual assault, rape, impregnation - and a pervasive fear of all these being inflicted. A terrible cost for imprisoned women to bear, in the name of inclusivity.

> ends up with males being incarcerated in such prisons

Well, no, those are women. The myth that men use inclusivity to get access to women is just that, a myth, unless you can provide evidence that this is really a common occurence. Obviously violence in prisons needs to be avoided but that's a different topic.

There have been numerous cases where female inmates have been raped or impregnated by males incarcerated alongside them in women's prisons. This alone should make it obvious that these men are not women.

Do you have a source how much of a problem this is, I'm not finding anything reliable.

Takes away from athletic scholarships, academic scholarships, etc. that are designed for biological women.

"Luxury belief" is a thing you can believe because you are rich enough to avoid being presented with counter-evidence.

So let me get this straight. You want to cancel the word “folks” from modern usage?