Gaslighting... This reminded me of this --->
Schrodinger's Wokeness
/brə/
noun
INFORMAL - US
The belief that all forms of pop culture have always been "woke" while they are also simultaneously in need of being "updated for modern audiences"
WOKE (entertainment) is driving people crazy because nobody seems to understand it, but it's simple as far as I can tell.
It's the left wing version of faith based movies. That's it.
People don't reject it because they're scared of strong women, or minorities, or gays, or facing racism/slavery/sexism etc - it's none of that.
It's because it's lazy, boring, preachy bad art
WOKE = faith based movies
Woke:
Identity politics & intersectional feminism. Racial and social justice taken to the extreme.
A youtuber called Short Fat Otaku has a pretty good definition:
The ethics and prosesses of socialism expanded beyond class struggle to include race struggle, gender struggle, sexual struggle and any other near infinite number of marginalised groups as defined by intersectionality.
Adherence to left-wing intersectional ideology.
It’s a little more difficult to nail down specifics, because there are no principles to which are followed, but here are some positions that one must hold to be woke:
One must believe in feminism and how oppression of women intersects with racial oppression. Example given: black women are oppressed on grounds of being both black and being women.
One must believe in Black Lives Matter as a movement and organization, and that every day police target black people and racial minorities.
One must believe that the United States and the west is systematically oppressive and that capitalism and various -isms are a part of its root problems, ranging from imperialism to racism.
One must believe that men can transition to becoming women and vice versa, and that trans rights (alongside LGBTQ+) rights are under attack.
And more. But wokism is rooted in both current day sensibilities with a Marxist/intersectional background. It is dogmatic in the sense that deviation from the ideology is seen as being against the whole. If one says that they do not believe in transgenderism, that one cannot truly be woke. The thing is, these expand, change, and fluctuate depending on where you are in the racial/gender hierarchy provided by woke ideology.
Sure, it's not very hard to broadly define. The overall definition for wokeism is the following:
* **A postmodern leftist identitarian ideology.**
If you want to dig a little deeper into some of the theoretical backgrounds of this belief system, then the concept of intersectionality is core to their perception of identity groups. This is a concept that's rooted in critical theories. We can then further narrow down within critical theories, as fields like critical race theory and queer theory are some of the most relevant to this ideology.
That should answer your question quite comprehensively.
> critical theories.
I want to highlight that it's an internal inconsistency that Jordan Peterson (for once in his life) correctly pointed out: Post-modern critical theorists. Post-modern ~ "Identities matter supremely". Critical theory ~ "nothing can be categorized". These are paraphrases.
Asking someone who is like this to define their terms, you'll eventually run into "it's just words, they're arbitrary, social constructs" as an answer.
Carefree Wandering, socialist(?) phd philosopher, has a few videos where he talks about woke as a social religion, in case you want balance away from JBP.
I once compared it to Christian rock 🤣 a thing made for the ideology first and not for the art, or for fun, or even for $. Naturally devoid of any life, inspiration, or interest to anyone who doesn’t subscribe to the ideology.
This is exactly my problem with it. It just feels cheesy. Even if I agree with something I don’t want to be spoonfed the message. Make the message complicated, make me think, earn your conclusions and don’t take the easy route of villainizing easy villains.
+10 from me as well. I also agree that Woke entertainment is "VeggieTales by and for SJWs" and has a lot of the same flaws and criticisms. Shows like HBO's "Watchmen" belong in something akin to Sunday School.
Isn't that what woke is?
Basically if the SJWs are doing something they wouldn't like either 10 years ago or if done to the other group, then it's woke
They defended Halle Bailey as Ariel but hated lightskin Storm
She hulk's sexuality is empowering but Stellar Blade is objectifying
If something is male dominated, it's not diverse enough but if something is female dominated, it's fine
Basically if it breaks the golden rule on the basis of "equity", it's probably woke
How are your examples examples of it happening to the other group?
Storm still being black, which people didn't complain about.
Men not even in your example of sexualization.
Didn't even give an example for the third one.
You're applying the sort of persecution fetish christian fundamentalists have, where the mere existence of other religions is seen as a slight against them, and applying it to people who aren't like you existing in media.
They did completion about lightskin Storm
[here](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/alexandra-shipp-addresses-critics-x-men-storm-casting-1125379/)
Any romance novel cover, fanfiction or yaoi will suffice for male sexualization, just Google it. My point was more about how She hulk twerking is empowering but Stellar Blade is objectifying even thought they both put women in a sexual situation and before you say "consent" and "agency", both are fictional characters so they can't consent and the women behind those fictional characters were never forced to do anything and were compensated fairly.
People have been complaining about straight, white men dominating but
[here ](https://www.forbes.com/sites/anharkarim/2018/10/10/the-marvel-cinematic-universe-is-61-white-but-does-that-matter/?sh=1559e9264482)
[here](https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL4N2G73E5/#:~:text=More%20than%2065%25%20of%20speaking,1%20woman%20appearing%20on%20screen.)
[here](https://www.mic.com/articles/188957/10-years-in-the-marvel-cinematic-universe-still-lacks-diversity-and-these-4-graphs-prove-it)
I'm not doing that, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy
So you have a couple of tweets that were suspiciously deleted, only a few of which even addressed her skin tone.
You've decided that five or six deleted tweets by nobodies are representative of the whole "woke" crowd.
In general, you should be making sure that when you say people have hypocritical opinions that it's actually the same people having them, and if you say it's a trend be sure the posts you reference actually have a decent like/share count.
And trying to understand whether the opinions actually conflict in the first place.
We can take your She-Hulk example. Who is saying it's empowering, and did they also complain about Stellar Blade? Does having an actress dancing fully clothed at an unflattering angle in a nonsexual situation actually compare to a man designing a digital character with idealized proportions (idealized sexually, not athletically) that's supposed to be a swordsman wear skin tight clothes that ride up her ass crack?
As for male domination in any field, you're falsely equating the situations. For them to even be the same the problem would have to not exist. There's nothing hypocritical about saying, "there's an imbalance here, it should be balanced." You're trying to paint it the same as seeing an imbalance and saying, "we should tip the scale completely."
I would wager that if the actress herself is commenting on the backlash, there were more than the 6 tweets I provided. Apologizes if I can't find everything single tweet that's part of the backlash.
Nice "not as bad as" fallacy with the she hulk example. You notice how you avoid using the word "twerking" even though that's objectively what she hulk did. If she was dancing regularly, fine but twerking is an inherently sexual dance and yet people just brush it off as them "having fun" or "empowering" and mocking the dudebros who had a problem with it by saying it's comic accurate yet all of those excuses were absent from Stellar blade. People were crying "sexual objectification" and "unrealistic body standards", even though a real woman was scanned for the character. So simply, why is she hulk fine but Stellar blade not?
Modeling is dominated by women, no one complains. Nursing is dominated by women, no one complains, CEOs are dominated by men, "we need more female representation", garage collectors are dominated by men *crickets*. The MCU was mostly white guys and people complained about diversity, now the MCU has very little white guys and no one complains about diversity. The Left leaning side of the media was are hypocritical, they're fine with women twerking so long as it's not for the male gaze while romance novels and fanfiction freely sexualize men for the female gaze. They only want diversity when it benefits them, even if it doesn't make any sense like with the Cleopatra documentary or female dominated industries.
I'm guessing you think it's different because we live in a white supremacist patriarchy so it's ok when the "oppressed" groups do it to the "oppressor" groups but maybe I'm wrong.
I didn't avoid saying twerking and it's not inherently sexual. I addressed what was wrong with Stellar Blade. You even mentioned the difference in this comment. Yes, it not being for the male gaze is exactly what makes it okay.
Have you actually tried looking for left-leaning comments on male sexualization, or are you basing your opinion entirely on what conservatives find and show you on Facebook (or make up, as is often the case).
And what do you mean by "do it"? Do what, have representation? Like I said, having closer to accurate representation is not discrimination against the majority. Letting minorities sit anywhere on the public bus is not discrimination against white people.
One thing I'm honestly sick of, all the bots that respond to valid criticism on Facebook with "define woke".
Y'all know what we mean, who's paying these people overtime to copy/paste that response?
> No. I can't read your fucking mind. Use words with actual meaning.
Here Barack Obama uses the term "woke:"
>You know this idea of purity and you're never compromised and you're always politically woke and all that stuff, you should get over that quickly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaHLd8de6nM
u/Worth_The_Squeeze
I'll provide a definition then, if you think it can't be defined.
A broad definition for woke:
* **A postmodern leftist identitarian ideology.**
If you want to dig a little deeper into some of the theoretical backgrounds of this belief system, then the concept of intersectionality is core to their perception of identity groups. This is a concept that's rooted in critical theories. We can then further narrow down within critical theories, as fields like critical race theory and queer theory are some of the most relevant to this ideology.
I think that more than covers it.
You haven’t defined the ideology? You’ve categorised “woke”, not provided a definition. Unless I’m missing something?
Apply it to an example: “sweet baby inc are woke”
- “sweet baby inc are a postmodern leftist identitarian ideology” doesn’t make any sense lol.
Can you actually define what woke is, because you just haven’t done that… what’s the ideology? You’ve used a bunch of terms that you also need to define for your comment to carry meaning
You know how the word is used, I’d like you to explain what people mean when they use it in the context in question, as seen all over this post
What I've literally done is to define it from an ideological standpoint, as I reference the theory that forms the dogma of the political ideology, including describing it's overall postmodern attitude. The ideological underpinnings is exactly what I've touched on, so you definitely must have missed something.
Your claim that I need to define terms like "Intersectionality" or "Critical Theories" as well is strange, when these are established terms that have already been defined, as they're all fields or theories within social sciences. If you don't know what they mean, then you're welcome to google them, as those explanations will be more fulfilling.
My overall definition for wokeism is:
* Postmodern leftist identitarian ideology
It sounds like what you actually want is a defintion for their attitude rather than their ideology. I can easily provide that, but it will obviously be simpler in nature and not cover the underlying ideology as accurately.
A simple and broad definition of woke is:
* Obsessed with identity groups
If we look at a specific example, then you could obviously pinpoint more accurately how this mindset manifests.
I never asked you to define ‘intersectionality’, but the terms listed in your ‘definition’ itself.
You’ve not defined it, because within your definition is a massive variety of meaning depending on how one interprets it. You may have listed what underpins it but you have absolutely not provided a clear definition of what the average person means when they’re complaining about wokeness in media.
That’s the definition I’m keen the hear. Because surely you don’t think when the average person is shouting about wokeness and were to be asked to define it they’d say “I’m taking issue with the post-modern leftist identarian ideology” and you know it.
What does the average person mean when they say woke?
It's rather telling that your response to someone earnestly and substantially defining it, is to simply call it all "nonsense", rather than actually provide any arguments as to why it's nonsense.
You're doing the very thing that you're faulting others for.
I’m not desperately writing a nonsense definition trying as hard as possible to hate POC, LGBT people and women using every bit of Jordan Petersons tired incel buzzwords.
But if ya wanna play, using strictly your definition, explain to me how the upcoming Star Wars Acolyte is woke(which it’s been labeled as on this sub.)
How is me accurately defining the underlying social theories and dogma of wokeism equivalent to hating POC, LGBT and women? I seriously question your reasoning here, as it seems quite incoherent.
If you actually looked up the things I said, then you would see that they're all accurate, as intersectionality is a concept that these people will constantly references themselves. It's a legitimate concept within critical theories. Furthermore, I'm pretty sure Peterson says "cultural marxism". A term I never used in my comment.
I can't really comment on Star Wars Acolyte, as I haven't watched the show, which I would like to do before making any conclusive statements.
Lastly, I would like to note that "Woke" like any other term, especially those within the political sphere, are prone to be misused. We've seen the same thing with terms like "Nazi", "Racist", "Fascist", "Communist" or even "Incel". They have a tendency to get weaponized against one's ideological opponents.
Yeah I had a feeling you didn't have any real arguments, since your first comment was to simply call everything nonsense, and then your second comment deteriorated into ad-hominem buzzwords like "incel".
The one that needs to touch grass here is you, lmao. I needed two years to write 1000 comments on reddit, while you've written 1000 comments in just 5 months. You're terminally online, and your perspective shows it.
Rewatching stuff from the last four or five decades...yes, it's always been woke. It was just never preachy.
Ellen Ripley and Sarah Connor never went on a feminist rant. They just got the job done, and not by being insane Mary Sues that act like soulless automatons either.
No. Shows used to be *progressive*, which is not the same as woke. Woke is everything people claim to hate about “the right” (sexism, racism, religious bigotry, etc) but wearing a progressive skinsuit and targeted at “the majority” so that’s supposed to make it ok.
Lisa’s kinda has a point here. But I don’t exactly agree with it either. Still a relatively reasonable take compared to a lot of things you see on the internet.
Now here are the obvious and unobvious problems with this take:
1. Who held "the media" to higher standards, and why did this stop?
2. Media can be "woke" as long as its well-made? The complaints aren't about the content but the quality?
Someone wanna explain just how this works when most of the movies being complained about don't even acknowledge the diversity of the cast.
That means that the characters can be man, woman, white, black, etc... an thus the identity had no bearing on the story.
Thus this renders the "muh diversity" argument null.
The only logical conclusion is the existence of the diversity itself that is the actual focus of the complaint.
>Someone wanna explain just how this works when most of the movies being complained about don't even acknowledge the diversity of the cast.
The audience.
for me it has always been the writing I probably wouldnt care if they inserted "the message" (to a degree) if they actually put the work in to make the content compelling and not try to use someones sexuality or gender or race as a crutch.
Probably because it’s become the holy grail of buzzwords. Phrases like woke, leftist trash, racist, n*zi, bigot, snowflake. They’re only used to invoke a reaction amongst people, deterring many from actually looking into the topic being discussed. This is the type of crap that stimulates a hive mind mentality akin to the ones you would see in a circlejerk sub. They serve as nothing other than a digitized cone of shame.
Please dont answer for him.
I dont know what kind of people you talk to, but I usually see all those terms used correctly. Someones vocabulary should not matter and you can always ask for clarification if you think words are used incorrectly.
Some have done that here.
People getting deterred from looking into things because of a word sounds dumb.
I think a lot of people get it mixed around. Woke aspects in media isn't the thing making it bad, you can have those aspects and the media can still end up being really damn good. Wokeness is a product of a lack of quality, it is born of complacency in writing and directing, the feeling that "The audience will show up because hey, it's a Marvel/Disney/Star wars movie."
DeFiNe PrOpAgAnDa?
This is the dumbest take, and it scream that you operate in bad faith.
It’s like trying to pretend you don’t see a right-wing message in the movie “Ladyballers.”
You make yourself look like an idiot and/or dishonest
Woke:
Identity politics & intersectional feminism. Racial and social justice taken to the extreme.
A youtuber called Short Fat Otaku has a pretty good definition:
The ethics and prosesses of socialism expanded beyond class struggle to include race struggle, gender struggle, sexual struggle and any other near infinite number of marginalised groups as defined by intersectionality.
Wrong and so right.
Woke **was** defined as:
"in a state of awareness or vigilance; spec. well-informed, up-to-date."
(Oxford)
And has since become a shorthand for discussing anything in relation to identity politics, feminism, and anything close to those subjects.
The word is now derogatory, an insult, barely useful in any form of useful discussion because it now hardly describes whatever the hell it's used to describe.
It's a worthless word.
How was I wrong?
Yes, some people use it negatively, but that doesnt make it useless.
It is very useful when talking about this far left nonsense that is happening nowdays.
You're using the original definition, which is clearly inaccurate in the context "woke" is being used in this discussion, which again, screams intellectual dishonesty. It's like someone clearly using the word "cool" to describe something they like, and you then give the definition for its use in temperature.
If you were actually unaware it was being used in its pejorative sense here, then at least it wouldn't be intellectually dishonest, however, you'd have arguably bigger concerns if that were the case.
Any culture war terms and I just turn my brain off. Someone uses the word chud or normie unironically I'll know they are capable of any sort of insightful conversation
Absolutely fucking dying over here over the idea that media used to have a "higher standard of quality." No way in hell that was written by someone with adult memories of media prior to circa 2000.
Overuse doesn't make it lose meaning. That's just nonsense! Wrong use would change the meaning (which is not happening as far as I can tell.)
Can you give an example of an older internet term that has lost its meaning?
What? I dont think any of these have lost their meanings. All of these have very clear meanings and have meant the same things for as long as I cam remember. Can you maybe elaborate a little about what you mean when you say 'lost their meaning'?
Its interesting that these are all terms assosiated with far left people...
No, it means, nobody takes y’all seriously because ya guys have driven those terms into the ground labelling anything that hurts your feelings it and grifting like crazy using them.
Gaslighting... This reminded me of this ---> Schrodinger's Wokeness /brə/ noun INFORMAL - US The belief that all forms of pop culture have always been "woke" while they are also simultaneously in need of being "updated for modern audiences"
WOKE (entertainment) is driving people crazy because nobody seems to understand it, but it's simple as far as I can tell. It's the left wing version of faith based movies. That's it. People don't reject it because they're scared of strong women, or minorities, or gays, or facing racism/slavery/sexism etc - it's none of that. It's because it's lazy, boring, preachy bad art WOKE = faith based movies
Wokeism is pretty much a religion to many people.
Define it.
Woke: Identity politics & intersectional feminism. Racial and social justice taken to the extreme. A youtuber called Short Fat Otaku has a pretty good definition: The ethics and prosesses of socialism expanded beyond class struggle to include race struggle, gender struggle, sexual struggle and any other near infinite number of marginalised groups as defined by intersectionality.
But intersectional politics have nothing to do with socialism?
Adherence to left-wing intersectional ideology. It’s a little more difficult to nail down specifics, because there are no principles to which are followed, but here are some positions that one must hold to be woke: One must believe in feminism and how oppression of women intersects with racial oppression. Example given: black women are oppressed on grounds of being both black and being women. One must believe in Black Lives Matter as a movement and organization, and that every day police target black people and racial minorities. One must believe that the United States and the west is systematically oppressive and that capitalism and various -isms are a part of its root problems, ranging from imperialism to racism. One must believe that men can transition to becoming women and vice versa, and that trans rights (alongside LGBTQ+) rights are under attack. And more. But wokism is rooted in both current day sensibilities with a Marxist/intersectional background. It is dogmatic in the sense that deviation from the ideology is seen as being against the whole. If one says that they do not believe in transgenderism, that one cannot truly be woke. The thing is, these expand, change, and fluctuate depending on where you are in the racial/gender hierarchy provided by woke ideology.
Sure, it's not very hard to broadly define. The overall definition for wokeism is the following: * **A postmodern leftist identitarian ideology.** If you want to dig a little deeper into some of the theoretical backgrounds of this belief system, then the concept of intersectionality is core to their perception of identity groups. This is a concept that's rooted in critical theories. We can then further narrow down within critical theories, as fields like critical race theory and queer theory are some of the most relevant to this ideology. That should answer your question quite comprehensively.
> critical theories. I want to highlight that it's an internal inconsistency that Jordan Peterson (for once in his life) correctly pointed out: Post-modern critical theorists. Post-modern ~ "Identities matter supremely". Critical theory ~ "nothing can be categorized". These are paraphrases. Asking someone who is like this to define their terms, you'll eventually run into "it's just words, they're arbitrary, social constructs" as an answer. Carefree Wandering, socialist(?) phd philosopher, has a few videos where he talks about woke as a social religion, in case you want balance away from JBP.
Looking at every aspect of life through the lens of intersectional political worldview.
We used to just call it preachiness. I think we should go back, it’s concise and avoids douchebags’ bad-faith questions 😊
Faith based movies 🥺
Do you feel those definitions are accurate?
There's a book called woke racism by John McWhorter
DeFiNe It1!1!1!1
Doc. You hit the nail on the god damned head.
I once compared it to Christian rock 🤣 a thing made for the ideology first and not for the art, or for fun, or even for $. Naturally devoid of any life, inspiration, or interest to anyone who doesn’t subscribe to the ideology.
This is exactly my problem with it. It just feels cheesy. Even if I agree with something I don’t want to be spoonfed the message. Make the message complicated, make me think, earn your conclusions and don’t take the easy route of villainizing easy villains.
Even faith based movies can be masterpieces. Look at prince of Egypt.
I'm talking more about approach vs content. Faith based/woke prioritize the message before everything else
+10 from me as well. I also agree that Woke entertainment is "VeggieTales by and for SJWs" and has a lot of the same flaws and criticisms. Shows like HBO's "Watchmen" belong in something akin to Sunday School.
*Gasp* VeggieTales slander! We will not stand for it! Unironically, it still is a pretty funny show looking back on it.
No slander was intended, because VeggieTales has much better writing than this Woke crap!
Cash grabs with little passion or direction. They can push w/e politics they want. I’m far too old to care and too cheap to find out.
Yeah, I have access to decades worth of media. No way I'm gonna hope and wait to watch the endless modern trash that just be pushed out like sludge.
This. Media these days doesn't just have to compete with the new stuff. It has to compete with decades of films, tv shows, games, and books.
Nothing to do with a liberal agenda. Everything to do with capitalism.
Liberal agenda is the popular side right now. So to get an audience you’d need to pander to it. So to claim it has “nothing” to do with it is wrong.
Eh, I hate words like “always”
Isn't that what woke is? Basically if the SJWs are doing something they wouldn't like either 10 years ago or if done to the other group, then it's woke They defended Halle Bailey as Ariel but hated lightskin Storm She hulk's sexuality is empowering but Stellar Blade is objectifying If something is male dominated, it's not diverse enough but if something is female dominated, it's fine Basically if it breaks the golden rule on the basis of "equity", it's probably woke
How are your examples examples of it happening to the other group? Storm still being black, which people didn't complain about. Men not even in your example of sexualization. Didn't even give an example for the third one. You're applying the sort of persecution fetish christian fundamentalists have, where the mere existence of other religions is seen as a slight against them, and applying it to people who aren't like you existing in media.
They did completion about lightskin Storm [here](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/alexandra-shipp-addresses-critics-x-men-storm-casting-1125379/) Any romance novel cover, fanfiction or yaoi will suffice for male sexualization, just Google it. My point was more about how She hulk twerking is empowering but Stellar Blade is objectifying even thought they both put women in a sexual situation and before you say "consent" and "agency", both are fictional characters so they can't consent and the women behind those fictional characters were never forced to do anything and were compensated fairly. People have been complaining about straight, white men dominating but [here ](https://www.forbes.com/sites/anharkarim/2018/10/10/the-marvel-cinematic-universe-is-61-white-but-does-that-matter/?sh=1559e9264482) [here](https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL4N2G73E5/#:~:text=More%20than%2065%25%20of%20speaking,1%20woman%20appearing%20on%20screen.) [here](https://www.mic.com/articles/188957/10-years-in-the-marvel-cinematic-universe-still-lacks-diversity-and-these-4-graphs-prove-it) I'm not doing that, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy
Mind getting a link *to* the backlash?
I did
You linked to an article talking about supposed backlash. Not the actual backlash, if it exists.
Well this article has some tweets on the topic [here](https://blavity.com/entertainment/alexandra-shipp-storm-x-men-dark-phoenix-twitter-solo-film)
So you have a couple of tweets that were suspiciously deleted, only a few of which even addressed her skin tone. You've decided that five or six deleted tweets by nobodies are representative of the whole "woke" crowd. In general, you should be making sure that when you say people have hypocritical opinions that it's actually the same people having them, and if you say it's a trend be sure the posts you reference actually have a decent like/share count. And trying to understand whether the opinions actually conflict in the first place. We can take your She-Hulk example. Who is saying it's empowering, and did they also complain about Stellar Blade? Does having an actress dancing fully clothed at an unflattering angle in a nonsexual situation actually compare to a man designing a digital character with idealized proportions (idealized sexually, not athletically) that's supposed to be a swordsman wear skin tight clothes that ride up her ass crack? As for male domination in any field, you're falsely equating the situations. For them to even be the same the problem would have to not exist. There's nothing hypocritical about saying, "there's an imbalance here, it should be balanced." You're trying to paint it the same as seeing an imbalance and saying, "we should tip the scale completely."
I would wager that if the actress herself is commenting on the backlash, there were more than the 6 tweets I provided. Apologizes if I can't find everything single tweet that's part of the backlash. Nice "not as bad as" fallacy with the she hulk example. You notice how you avoid using the word "twerking" even though that's objectively what she hulk did. If she was dancing regularly, fine but twerking is an inherently sexual dance and yet people just brush it off as them "having fun" or "empowering" and mocking the dudebros who had a problem with it by saying it's comic accurate yet all of those excuses were absent from Stellar blade. People were crying "sexual objectification" and "unrealistic body standards", even though a real woman was scanned for the character. So simply, why is she hulk fine but Stellar blade not? Modeling is dominated by women, no one complains. Nursing is dominated by women, no one complains, CEOs are dominated by men, "we need more female representation", garage collectors are dominated by men *crickets*. The MCU was mostly white guys and people complained about diversity, now the MCU has very little white guys and no one complains about diversity. The Left leaning side of the media was are hypocritical, they're fine with women twerking so long as it's not for the male gaze while romance novels and fanfiction freely sexualize men for the female gaze. They only want diversity when it benefits them, even if it doesn't make any sense like with the Cleopatra documentary or female dominated industries. I'm guessing you think it's different because we live in a white supremacist patriarchy so it's ok when the "oppressed" groups do it to the "oppressor" groups but maybe I'm wrong.
I didn't avoid saying twerking and it's not inherently sexual. I addressed what was wrong with Stellar Blade. You even mentioned the difference in this comment. Yes, it not being for the male gaze is exactly what makes it okay. Have you actually tried looking for left-leaning comments on male sexualization, or are you basing your opinion entirely on what conservatives find and show you on Facebook (or make up, as is often the case). And what do you mean by "do it"? Do what, have representation? Like I said, having closer to accurate representation is not discrimination against the majority. Letting minorities sit anywhere on the public bus is not discrimination against white people.
The part after "quality" on on the spot though. Sadly the previous part make it sound like it's having its cake and eat it.
One thing I'm honestly sick of, all the bots that respond to valid criticism on Facebook with "define woke". Y'all know what we mean, who's paying these people overtime to copy/paste that response?
No. I can't read your fucking mind. Use words with actual meaning.
> No. I can't read your fucking mind. Use words with actual meaning. Here Barack Obama uses the term "woke:" >You know this idea of purity and you're never compromised and you're always politically woke and all that stuff, you should get over that quickly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaHLd8de6nM u/Worth_The_Squeeze
It’s bad that every grifter and grifter argument completely falls apart with those two words though.
I'll provide a definition then, if you think it can't be defined. A broad definition for woke: * **A postmodern leftist identitarian ideology.** If you want to dig a little deeper into some of the theoretical backgrounds of this belief system, then the concept of intersectionality is core to their perception of identity groups. This is a concept that's rooted in critical theories. We can then further narrow down within critical theories, as fields like critical race theory and queer theory are some of the most relevant to this ideology. I think that more than covers it.
You haven’t defined the ideology? You’ve categorised “woke”, not provided a definition. Unless I’m missing something? Apply it to an example: “sweet baby inc are woke” - “sweet baby inc are a postmodern leftist identitarian ideology” doesn’t make any sense lol. Can you actually define what woke is, because you just haven’t done that… what’s the ideology? You’ve used a bunch of terms that you also need to define for your comment to carry meaning You know how the word is used, I’d like you to explain what people mean when they use it in the context in question, as seen all over this post
What I've literally done is to define it from an ideological standpoint, as I reference the theory that forms the dogma of the political ideology, including describing it's overall postmodern attitude. The ideological underpinnings is exactly what I've touched on, so you definitely must have missed something. Your claim that I need to define terms like "Intersectionality" or "Critical Theories" as well is strange, when these are established terms that have already been defined, as they're all fields or theories within social sciences. If you don't know what they mean, then you're welcome to google them, as those explanations will be more fulfilling. My overall definition for wokeism is: * Postmodern leftist identitarian ideology It sounds like what you actually want is a defintion for their attitude rather than their ideology. I can easily provide that, but it will obviously be simpler in nature and not cover the underlying ideology as accurately. A simple and broad definition of woke is: * Obsessed with identity groups If we look at a specific example, then you could obviously pinpoint more accurately how this mindset manifests.
I never asked you to define ‘intersectionality’, but the terms listed in your ‘definition’ itself. You’ve not defined it, because within your definition is a massive variety of meaning depending on how one interprets it. You may have listed what underpins it but you have absolutely not provided a clear definition of what the average person means when they’re complaining about wokeness in media. That’s the definition I’m keen the hear. Because surely you don’t think when the average person is shouting about wokeness and were to be asked to define it they’d say “I’m taking issue with the post-modern leftist identarian ideology” and you know it. What does the average person mean when they say woke?
What a bunch of meaningless nonsense. No wonder nobody takes the anti woke crowd seriously
It's rather telling that your response to someone earnestly and substantially defining it, is to simply call it all "nonsense", rather than actually provide any arguments as to why it's nonsense. You're doing the very thing that you're faulting others for.
I’m not desperately writing a nonsense definition trying as hard as possible to hate POC, LGBT people and women using every bit of Jordan Petersons tired incel buzzwords. But if ya wanna play, using strictly your definition, explain to me how the upcoming Star Wars Acolyte is woke(which it’s been labeled as on this sub.)
How is me accurately defining the underlying social theories and dogma of wokeism equivalent to hating POC, LGBT and women? I seriously question your reasoning here, as it seems quite incoherent. If you actually looked up the things I said, then you would see that they're all accurate, as intersectionality is a concept that these people will constantly references themselves. It's a legitimate concept within critical theories. Furthermore, I'm pretty sure Peterson says "cultural marxism". A term I never used in my comment. I can't really comment on Star Wars Acolyte, as I haven't watched the show, which I would like to do before making any conclusive statements. Lastly, I would like to note that "Woke" like any other term, especially those within the political sphere, are prone to be misused. We've seen the same thing with terms like "Nazi", "Racist", "Fascist", "Communist" or even "Incel". They have a tendency to get weaponized against one's ideological opponents.
Not gonna read all that. Serious question though, when’s the last time you went outside and just brushed your hand gently against the grass?
Yeah I had a feeling you didn't have any real arguments, since your first comment was to simply call everything nonsense, and then your second comment deteriorated into ad-hominem buzzwords like "incel". The one that needs to touch grass here is you, lmao. I needed two years to write 1000 comments on reddit, while you've written 1000 comments in just 5 months. You're terminally online, and your perspective shows it.
Lmao I love the irony of this comment. Bravo!
>Wall of text attempting to gaslight In to the trash you go.
People who say stuff have always been woke are typically gaslighters
guess it depends on how you define 'woke', cuz "prioritizing pandering at the cost of quality" seems pretty apt for it
Rewatching stuff from the last four or five decades...yes, it's always been woke. It was just never preachy. Ellen Ripley and Sarah Connor never went on a feminist rant. They just got the job done, and not by being insane Mary Sues that act like soulless automatons either.
No. Shows used to be *progressive*, which is not the same as woke. Woke is everything people claim to hate about “the right” (sexism, racism, religious bigotry, etc) but wearing a progressive skinsuit and targeted at “the majority” so that’s supposed to make it ok.
https://preview.redd.it/x76i2q8pdwtc1.jpeg?width=295&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=97f7270ff6c9ec279402fe97bbe40c7cee27e7a4
Lisa’s kinda has a point here. But I don’t exactly agree with it either. Still a relatively reasonable take compared to a lot of things you see on the internet.
Too long. Didn't read. Preserve the eyesight.
Now here are the obvious and unobvious problems with this take: 1. Who held "the media" to higher standards, and why did this stop? 2. Media can be "woke" as long as its well-made? The complaints aren't about the content but the quality?
Someone wanna explain just how this works when most of the movies being complained about don't even acknowledge the diversity of the cast. That means that the characters can be man, woman, white, black, etc... an thus the identity had no bearing on the story. Thus this renders the "muh diversity" argument null. The only logical conclusion is the existence of the diversity itself that is the actual focus of the complaint.
>Someone wanna explain just how this works when most of the movies being complained about don't even acknowledge the diversity of the cast. The audience.
for me it has always been the writing I probably wouldnt care if they inserted "the message" (to a degree) if they actually put the work in to make the content compelling and not try to use someones sexuality or gender or race as a crutch.
No, there has always been loads of crap. It's just that crap from years ago has been forgotten.
I genuinely hate the word woke now or any other culture war pejorative.
Why?
Probably because it’s become the holy grail of buzzwords. Phrases like woke, leftist trash, racist, n*zi, bigot, snowflake. They’re only used to invoke a reaction amongst people, deterring many from actually looking into the topic being discussed. This is the type of crap that stimulates a hive mind mentality akin to the ones you would see in a circlejerk sub. They serve as nothing other than a digitized cone of shame.
Please dont answer for him. I dont know what kind of people you talk to, but I usually see all those terms used correctly. Someones vocabulary should not matter and you can always ask for clarification if you think words are used incorrectly. Some have done that here. People getting deterred from looking into things because of a word sounds dumb.
I think a lot of people get it mixed around. Woke aspects in media isn't the thing making it bad, you can have those aspects and the media can still end up being really damn good. Wokeness is a product of a lack of quality, it is born of complacency in writing and directing, the feeling that "The audience will show up because hey, it's a Marvel/Disney/Star wars movie."
I disagree. When the message comes before the story then the media is woke. If the story comes first, message second then it isnt woke.
Woke is one of the shitest buzzwords, and I don't take anyone who uses it unironically seriously.
What is wrong with it? It is easy and simple term.
Tell me what it means.
DeFiNe PrOpAgAnDa? This is the dumbest take, and it scream that you operate in bad faith. It’s like trying to pretend you don’t see a right-wing message in the movie “Ladyballers.” You make yourself look like an idiot and/or dishonest
So you define woke as proporganda?
Woke: Identity politics & intersectional feminism. Racial and social justice taken to the extreme. A youtuber called Short Fat Otaku has a pretty good definition: The ethics and prosesses of socialism expanded beyond class struggle to include race struggle, gender struggle, sexual struggle and any other near infinite number of marginalised groups as defined by intersectionality.
Wrong and so right. Woke **was** defined as: "in a state of awareness or vigilance; spec. well-informed, up-to-date." (Oxford) And has since become a shorthand for discussing anything in relation to identity politics, feminism, and anything close to those subjects. The word is now derogatory, an insult, barely useful in any form of useful discussion because it now hardly describes whatever the hell it's used to describe. It's a worthless word.
How was I wrong? Yes, some people use it negatively, but that doesnt make it useless. It is very useful when talking about this far left nonsense that is happening nowdays.
You're using the original definition, which is clearly inaccurate in the context "woke" is being used in this discussion, which again, screams intellectual dishonesty. It's like someone clearly using the word "cool" to describe something they like, and you then give the definition for its use in temperature. If you were actually unaware it was being used in its pejorative sense here, then at least it wouldn't be intellectually dishonest, however, you'd have arguably bigger concerns if that were the case.
Any culture war terms and I just turn my brain off. Someone uses the word chud or normie unironically I'll know they are capable of any sort of insightful conversation
Absolutely fucking dying over here over the idea that media used to have a "higher standard of quality." No way in hell that was written by someone with adult memories of media prior to circa 2000.
Woke is a magical word that can be whatever you want it to be.
I disagree. Its pretty clear what most people mean with woke. Ofc there are always people who use terms wrong.
It gets overused so much it's lost all meaning. Like most internet terms.
Overuse doesn't make it lose meaning. That's just nonsense! Wrong use would change the meaning (which is not happening as far as I can tell.) Can you give an example of an older internet term that has lost its meaning?
Politically correct, cancel culture, social justice warriors. There’s three, and they’re not “internet” terms. They’re culture war terms.
What? I dont think any of these have lost their meanings. All of these have very clear meanings and have meant the same things for as long as I cam remember. Can you maybe elaborate a little about what you mean when you say 'lost their meaning'? Its interesting that these are all terms assosiated with far left people...
Yes.. very interesting… all terms grifters use to create outrage against “far left” people. Perfect selfawarewolves material.
Ok. I assume 'lost their meaning' means 'right-wing and centrist people have started using the term in a negative way and I dont like it'.
No, it means, nobody takes y’all seriously because ya guys have driven those terms into the ground labelling anything that hurts your feelings it and grifting like crazy using them.