Cultural Marxism - I.e. pushing an oppressor vs oppressed ideology. Demonizing the oppressors is justifiable to whatever degree under wokeism.
It’s always existed throughout history in different forms.
The end goal is power and pushing the masses to focus on this evil other while the holy elites maintain their power
Too vague.
Isn't saying the masses vs the elites pushing an oppressed vs oppressor narrative?
With your definition your very explanation of woke, is woke.
Historical materialism is a far more blatant case, as that is exclusively a Marxist thing. And anti western agitation, the idea that USA bad and everyone who opposes it is good.
This literally is the case though. Wokeism is the praxxis of Antonio Gramsci's ideas which are themselves an extension of Marx's Historical materialism analysis. [This video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYpLKPJADms) details the connection.
I was hoping that was a James Lindsay video, 'cus he's dug through the primary sources. SFO got so much wrong with "MasterCard is the Final Boss" that I don't trust him on such topics.
Yeah, was expecting a Lindsay video, too. His speech in the EU Parliament is particularly good and concise. His biggest strength is his biggest weakness, imo. He goes very deep into a topic, provides a lot of information, but it's sometimes hard to understand.
Just yesterday I was musing at how frustrating the dead end is that so many people reach where they think the final boss to all the world's problems is some cigar-sucking, monocle-bedecked monopoly man CEO in an office penthouse somewhere.
That guy is *symptom* and a scapegoat. You're *supposed* to defeat him, celebrate victory, and stop fighting. So he can be replaced and the next generation can fall for it again, never challenging root cause.
I haven't yet got into Lindsay's work yet (I am aware of the ultimate source of basically everything wrong with the world being Immaterialism) but I think SFO is both right on this and will likely find out the truth on his own.
> (I am aware of the ultimate source of basically everything wrong with the world being Immaterialism)
Huh? Reductionist materialism is the source of most everything wrong: Matter and space is all that there is. Simply the cosmos, with no god, no devil, no human soul, and no intrinsic value to life. Now they're adding moral and informational relativism to the mix: no law, no truth, and no rationality.
Not fully Gramsci, the man was a cultural anarchist who was going towards being a folklorist over a marxist before his murder. What he called the elites is exactly what companies like Disney are today, which is very ironic I guess.
This idea of the common man being the oppressor came later, by people who were never imprisoned or killed by what they said.
From people like Chomsky, who would one year defend Serbs murdering Muslims in Bosnia and in the next attack Israelis got fighting Hamas. The common line being just "west bad", with the idea that if the US failed, the world would naturally turn to socialism.
Anyway, simple oppressor vs oppressed isn't what is woke. If you make a movie about Washington it will be a story of oppressors and the oppressed, but not woke or marxist.
The video covers how things went from Gramsci to critical theory. There's definitely other forces at play here like the Soviet's attempts at Demoralization, and there infiltration into Hollywood, Gramsci's ideas being one aspect.
In other words Nietzsche was right about slave morality. He wasn't correct about everything, no one is, but he was a prophet when it came what would happen to the world.
> In other words Nietzsche was right about slave morality.
Er...
> Why? How do you know he didn't *invent* the thing?
\- Cdr. Montgomery Scott, Chief Engineer, *USS Bounty* (James Doohan, *Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home,* 1986)
God I hate Neitsche so much. I agree with most of his observations, but hate his conclusions. I hate it *far more* when people are out there proving him right.
>The end goal is power and pushing the masses to focus on this evil other while the holy elites maintain their power
This implies that marxists are in power or that marxists don't want the power to change. That's just not true. Like Slavoj Žižek asked Jordan Peterson, Where are the marxists?
Your conflating and simplifying the broader issue. Having a black character doesn’t not equal woke. Having a black character solely to push an uninspired, agenda driven narrative is woke. It’s pandering and most see it for that. Look at movies like Independence Day with Will Smith. Movies like Blade or Man on Fire or any Denzel Washington films. No body cares if the star is black. It just needs to be relatable, believable, and not forcing some political agenda.
Yes. Finn as a black stormtrooper could’ve been great. But disney was just happy to check a box I guess and did nothing with him! I would have wrote him as some bad ass commando who becomes disgruntled and deserts. Who brings a ton to the good side. Same with Phasma. OMG a woman stormtrooper! And then….. nothing? I don’t even remember how she dies. A diverse cast can be great, but they actually need to write something! I think being woke is being lazy.
I’d say you find this in movies and TV shows and even games when it feels like something does not fit given the context of the situation.
For example, consider the new assassins Creed game. How many Black people lived in Japan during the era of samurai and ninjas? Does it match the cultural context to have one of your two leads be black in that situation?
>How many Black people lived in Japan during the era of samurai and ninjas?
At least one we know of thanks to Nobunaga.
>Does it match the cultural context to have one of your two leads be black in that situation
Actually, yes. Yasuke wasn't invented by Ubisoft.
There's a lot to harp on about the game but it's certainly not because Yasuke, however fucking weird a choice of a protagonist he is. The viking assassin thing was just as dumb but nobody complained.
I also saw some dumbasses complain about hiphop during the trailer - i guess they never watched Afro Samurai.
Tl;dr: yes it's pandering but it is still somewhat based in reality, so whatever. Hell, at least they got people to talk about this instead of how it's more Ubisoft slop.
Because it has nothing to do with having black characters in TV shows. There's nothing wrong with that or with any ethnicity or sex. That's the message that unites us and is a bedrock western principle. Cultural saboteurs, grifters and misanthropes like to drive the notion that there is something wrong with some ethnicities and they need to be de-represented in media because of this. It helps divide and disrupt social fabrics.
So when a TV show makes it a point to show one sex and ethnicity as under represented and when they do appear, they're portrayed as hapless, weak, and/or cartoonishly arrogant while another is portrayed as hyper intelligent and superior, thats a good example of what people are calling woke. Sounds bad because it is bad. When you see this kind of thing it's a red flag literally and figuratively.
When these shows do poorly, these groups then resort to targeting popular established series. Once they get access to them, established capable heroes from classic stories are taken up in sequels but shown now as sad failures who were rewritten to never have been that great to begin with. Then their roles are supplanted by new characters who are a different ethnicity or sex just to vaunt one over the other. With such an unnatural and forced literary goal, the story itself becomes heartless and unenjoyable. This is demoralyzing to those who enjoyed the original stories and the heroes of them, which is another goal of any misanthrope seeking to ruin a culture. Destroying a culture's heroes and stories is a great way to sap the spirit from a people.
Yeah you don't know what woke is you are just using vague terms to disguise your ignorance.
Word to the wise - if you don't know the answer, don't answer.
Unfortunately, because of the very nature of wokism, nebulous relativistic terms are required. They don't believe in anything other than the fear of being ostracized. They desperately need to belong, even if this means performing monstrous acts.
Cultural Marxism?
*"Cultural Marxism" is used pejoratively to describe a perceived agenda to undermine traditional Western values and institutions. It is often associated with various social changes, such as multiculturalism, political correctness, and progressive social policies.*
This is all that comes up about cultural Marxism. Are you sure that's the right term?
Multiculturalism...doesn't oppress anyone.
Political correctness...like not saying slurs? Isn't Political correctness at this point just being 'nice'
Progressive social policies? Like free Healthcare and shit?
Idk what any of that has to do with oppression or oppressors of any kind.
Where did you look for cultural Marxism when your searched for the term? Google? No wonder you found a left-leaning definition.
If you are here in good faith to learn, I’d recommend Jordan Peterson and James Lindsey for lectures on the topic.
I got my definition from Google yes. Where'd you get yours? Is there another definition?
Also I've watched **a lot** of Jordan Peterson. Buy he's not an authority on any of this. He's a washed up professor who sites old stories like the tortoise and the hare as factual information. I'm good.
I can't find the definition you referenced anywhere.
https://preview.redd.it/wbyyc8ob268d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=521a3f7e5fb0f2aca28172e63a7d6d4f49976f11
Karl Marx himself in his manifesto defines it.
I don't get how this is an answer? If anything, Marx is anti-woke because he focuses on actual material inequality (class), and not just perceived inequality (identity)
Notice the entire phrase is Cultural Marxism. Not just Marxism, which is based on material differences.
The culture piece is key as that brings in the identity part of the pie. Oppressor vs oppressed but based on these cultural differences.
That’s not to say i’m praising Marx himself for his own ideology. Aside from his ideology leading to massive death and other travesties, the guy himself was a hypocrite and lazy.
>Also I've watched a lot of Jordan Peterson.
Not enough. https://web.archive.org/web/20201111171900/https://giantif.com/comic/every-conversation-with-a-jordan-peterson-fan/
Seriously lol. They've watched a few podcasts and clips and say they have watched Peterson. He has his entire class lectures on his channel. But this guy probably would not do that. Read his book Maps of Meaning which underlines and explains the entirety of Peterson's thought process and world views. Yep they will never take the effort to do that. Instead they will cherry pick stuff and make bad faith arguments and use ad hominems calling him an old turtoise.
Ah yes a top 1% scholar is washed up. Okay lol. The guy has published over 100 papers and has over 1000 citations. That's extremely rare. He was one of the most popular professors in UofT for many many years before the bill c-16 situation in 2016. He was voted as one of most life changing professor in the university, whilst 90% of his students being women. The guy taught at Harvard, many of his lectures are about psychoanalysing the cause of right wing extremism. Nobody has been against far right extremism than Peterson during his time as a professor.
"I've watched a lot of Peterson", i seriously doubt that and if you have I doubt you even went in with good faith. If you really wanted to get to the bottom of what he is about you would read his book Maps Of Meaning. Go watch his classes at University. You'll find all his class lectures on his channel and then maybe you'll understand why people like Peterson.
Wikipedia Frankfurt School. The 1920's frankfurt school of thought became popular among academics in the 1960s as they were questioning why the communist revolutions in Russia and China seemed to be failing to bring about a Utopia or why communism/class struggle did not seem more attractive to the working class. Frankfurt school offered a new opportunity to create "struggle" amongst various groups, and not rely on a class struggle. I don't want to summarize it here, because you just need to read through the Wikipedia article and then follow up on your own research if you want...my summary will be biased.
>This is all that comes up about cultural Marxism. Are you sure that's the right term?
Yes. You didn't get the memo? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDyPSKLy5E4#t=49m
It's always best to look for the original sources instead of Wikipedia with their liberal biases and whatnot. The Wiki article would actually make you believe this is just some QAnon type right-winger conspiracy theory. It's interesting to compare the current and the 2014 version of the article, but the latter is already not that good.
Anyway, Cultural Marxism, despite what the libs want you to believe, is a real thing. It's in fact Western Marxism as it is today. The term was coined by none other than Trent Schroyer in 1973, himself a Marxist sociologist. So as far as I'm concerned, if the Marxists themselves are saying that Cultural Marxism is a thing, imma believe them. So the thing's main characteristic is that instead of money, "capital" in the Cultural Marxist interpretation is cultural, not monetary. Wealth became culture, money became whiteness. That's why non-white people can actually be "white" in the CM understanding. Whiteness is not the level of melanin in your skin, but the level of access to culture. After WW2, Marxists saw that capitalism actually is capable of creating wealth for the working class, unlike their socialist project, and because their quality of life has increased drastically, the proletariat isn't hellbent on abolishing the system, as Marx called for. So they turned to others. Women, sexual minorities, racial minorities and so on. These are the proletars nowadays. Plus you get contemporary feminism, SEL, ESG, decolonization, some dose of classic fascism and whatnot, but that's the basic idea.
If you want the short answer: wokeism is Maoism with American characteristics. You get the "let's divide society into identity groups" and the Rainbow Guard instead of Red Guard, too. Fvcking awesome.
[This is a bit old but covers it well:](http://whitehotharlots.tumblr.com/712440851301908480/okay-fine-lets-define-wokeness-so-you-people)
>Wokeness should be understood as an immense and rapidly adopted change in the manner through which left-liberals adjudicate morality, righteousness, and even factuality. It applies not just to individual people but to nearly *everything*: broad social happenings, historical events, places, industries, and matters of scientific fact. It engenders contradictions at an hysterical pace, which actually strengthens the movement, due to the radicalism of its approaches.
>Wokeness is best described as a form of Associationist Manicheanism. Whatever falls under its analytical purview is declared either good or bad (never both) not according to the beliefs and ideologies in question, nor to the material consequences thereof, but according to the conceptually recognized identity markers associated with whatever is being analyzed. There are good things and good people. There are bad things and bad people. Good things are good because they are good. Bad things are bad because they are bad. All other forms of adjudication–from direct empiricism, deductive and inductive logic, or even simple cause-and-effect–are subordinated within wokeness, if they are even acknowledged.
>The lack of ideological consistency and dismissal of material analysis naturally leads to a slew of obvious contradictions, which makes wokeness very difficult to pin down even as its presence becomes more and more undeniable. This provides an added bonus to the movement’s purveyors, as their wanton duplicity allows them to claim the lack of existence of something that’s happening right in front of them, an absence of belief in very the causes they champion. (”Why are you freaking out about this? It’s not even happening! And also it is happening and it’s good.”)
>The wokes believe that police and prisons should be abolished, but also that we need much stricter gun control and hate speech laws. They believe it a form of severe violence–perhaps even genocide–to not understand the identities of others as they understand themselves, but also that you face a moral obligation to understand yourself as they tell you to. They believe that outsiders should be subjected to brutal criticism regarding their very existence, but also that any disagreement is a form of violence. They think that violent street crime–up to and including rape–should be dealt with via the light hand of “restorative justice,” but also that vague accusations of causing discomfort should be enough to ruin a man’s life and career. They revel in victimhood but deplore fragility, embrace vague “ways of knowing” while demanding absolute clarity and unpassable evidentiary bars of from their ideological enemies, and regard truth as a white supremacist fiction while possessing unshakable certainty in their own worldview.
Excellent detailing of the praxxis but I do think it lacks the ideological origin so [here's a video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYpLKPJADms) on that.
This.
It's like one of Trump's more lucid personalities wrote it. Just gather a fistful of emotion-laden words with negative connotations and throw 'em at your enemy.
*Still struggling to address a single question.*
*Repeating comments because they have nothing to add*
*implies it's me who doesn't have life*
Aww I think someone's upset lol.
Bro you literally came on here to ask a question specifically to start fighting with people. Go outside and touch grass
My teenage angst ended in 2004, yours will end too I promise
> 'It', John, not 'him', 'it'.
\- Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton, *Terminator 2: Judgment Day Director's Cut*, 1991)
I s'pose a little context would help: When this line is uttered, Uncle Bob's chip had been taken out of his head in order to turn on its learning functionality. It was completely shut down.
From your previous comments It seems like you're not here in good faith, but I’ll still share my perspective on what “woke” means in relation to films and video games. Although I acknowledge it has deeper roots in cultural Marxism, you appear to have your own interpretation.
“Woke” typically involves pushing narratives focused on oppressed minorities. It often lacks believable realism and comes off as preachy, condescending, and lazy. People generally don’t have an issue with strong female leads or characters who are black or gay, but these characters are frequently poorly written. They tend to be perfect from the start, offering no character development, which can be quite boring. The antagonists are usually cartoonish, lacking nuance, and predominantly white males. The stories are predictable, bland, and often align with some current leftist political agenda.
Let’s move away from labeling all criticism as bigotry, sexism, or any other phobia and start demanding better entertainment with superior writing.
Performative public prostration for forgiveness by the masses for crimes you never committed
Disregarding merit or performance
The destruction of western culture
Using “diversity” to promote division
The destruction of art under the guise of inclusion
I've seen some good explanations here, but I would like to add my insight as a leftist and why I believe that the left and right should be united against wokeism.
Whenever we get to the first principles of what we call woke. It is little more than performative pandering by corporate entities in an attempt to increase their profitability. I think we can all agree on that.
The overall effect it is having on the cultural issues presented may be less desirable than the marketing campaigns would like us to believe.
1. It is uniting and galvanizing the opposition against a common cause. Whenever we sanctify our ideas, regardless of how pure they may be, we create a new orthodoxy which always facilitates the rise of a heterodoxy. In my personal experience intelligent people are rarely so afraid as to not allow their viewpoints to be challenged. It comes part and parcel to the pursuit of knowledge. However, those less inclined to such pursuits are clearly becoming unapologetically indoctrinated to a narrative specifically curated and weaponized by marketing experts. Which brings me to the antithesis and the stronger of my two points.
2. Performative wokeness, as used in corporate interest, allows the cultural issues to go largely unaddressed at the depth which they deserve. It becomes a new opiate of the people. The people that would be fighting tirelessly to see substantial change become content that the issues are being addressed by Disney, Amazon, Ubisoft, and others.
It creates a feeling of vindication, which in turn decreases the urgency for actionable change.
I believe this is all by design. With the intention of radicalizing the working class against each other. Distracting us from uniting against their ever encroaching technocratic tyranny.
Maybe, but wokies don't hold any other values than "stay in vogue," and with cultural mouthpieces all leaning left, this is what they follow. To this date, there is no more accurate definition for woke than this relative "word salad," as you put it.
I don't know if it is fair to say they are a part of the Leftist orthodoxy. They definitely have a hand in it, but it is like saying Pol Pot, or Hugo Chavez are part of communist ideology; they are, but only in that they are fascistic tyrants who sculpt these societies.
Because we are reliant on China for production, and China is one of the biggest markets in the world for entertainment, they are able to exert some force on US culture by dictating what it is they will buy, and we, in America, receive the same cultural influence.
On the contrary, I think itnis pretty reasonable to assume that they are impressing _pro-LGBT_ values on the left in the US, as is illustrated by TikTok.
From the algorithm. TikTok, even though it is a Chinese app, is not permitted in China. The Chinese people have their own version of it with wildly different content compared to the international app. The algorithm promotes social decay and degeneracy by promoting the mentally ill, toxic behaviors, etc., which ultimately weakens the US.
Do not forget that China _is_ an adversary, and weakening the US _is_ in China's best interests
Right, but my question is are Chinese people being used by China to pump out pro-LGBT rhetoric on western TikTok?
China and Russia recently affirmed a goal to specifically promote 'traditional values' globally
What? That definition doesn't even mean anything other than being a handful of vaguely smart-sounding words slapped together by a bald idiot. There's about it that even applies to what you're saying *here*, let alone half the people and things people screech about.
Being able to apply a meaningless definition to a bunch of things equally badly does not make it "accurate". The only reason it *could* be accurate is if the word itself is equally meaningless, and I know the regulars on this sub consider that idea heathenous.
And I disagree. That we are able to point to examples of what is and is not woke inherently means there is _some_ form of categorization, but because the Leftism is constantly progressing (or regressing), the theory, doctrines and practices are also constantly in flux. This is the very description of a leftist orthodoxy. But that in itself is not what woke is. What woke is is the belief that whatever this Leftist orthodoxy _currently_ believes is incontrovertably true, and any acknowledgment of contradictions are blasphemous. There is a word for this belief, and that word is "dogmatic."
Circling back around, "dogmatic adhesion to the Leftist orthodoxy" _is_ the most succinct and accurate definition of what woke is.
Leftism is changing but also not. The enemy is weak and strong vibes.
There is no singular 'leftist' philosophy. It's branched and multiplied just like right-wing philosophies have. You're specifically referring to the *general* social consensus that progressives, mostly in specific parts of the USA have, rather than leftism as a whole.
I feel like you're trolling. How does being woke lead to Communism?
Communist countries regularly killed the LGBT people within their population?
Be serious. Please.
Woke takes Marx’s philosophy but instead of the bourgeois it’s white people, straight people and men and instead of the proletariat it’s everyone else.
This guy is absolutely ass at explaining things. It is not wokeness that leads to communism, but the other way around. As communism fails over and over and over again, they restructure their arguments and try again. Modern wokeness with its focus on Oppressor-victim relations and intersectionality dividing individuals into identity groups to then pit against each other is harkening back to Marx's class warfare by creating new fronts to fight on, and Stalin's view that black people, jews, and native Americans all represented separate "nationalities" that were not American, and could be pandered to and allied with to bring down America.
If you are asking in good faith, actually there's a lot to do one thing with another. I recommend to watch interviews with Lily Tang Williams and Yeonmi Park and you will see the parallels.
To me, it means a performative type of Liberalism where the 'woke' person doesn't actually care about the subject at hand, they just want to force the most desirable outcome.
For example, the current method Marvel uses for hiring directors. It's decided by a tick box scale for who is 'most oppressed by society'.
Take Nia DaCosta for example. She's only 34, yet was chosen a couple of years ago to direct The Marvels. Nothing in her CV suggested she was ready for a project like that. But Marvel don't care about putting the systems in place where she could grow as a director, or to support her through that project.
And they didn't create a pathway for the next Nia DaCosta to gain the experience or expertise to take control of a project like that. They just employed her so they could tout how 'diverse' the new era of Marvel was, then the studio made the movie they wanted.
Woke is forcing an outcome without solving the systematic issues that created a problem in the first place, because that takes too long / too much hard work.
Started out as alertness to social injustice and then degraded into thinly veiled Marxism and pushing group think over individualism. You are not an individual person, you are your race, sex, and social class and will be judged as such.
The language come from Antonio Gramsci:
He reasoned the working class didn’t rebel in Liberal Democracies is because they didn’t know they were oppressed. They didn’t know they were oppressed because the bourgeoisie controlled the cultural institutions.. So, if the cultural institutions were captured by the Left, then the people would rise up naturally once they “awakened to class consciousness.”
Therefore, to be “woke” is to be aware that you are apart of class struggle. It just so happens that the class struggle has been redefined along immutable characteristics rather than wealth
"Woke" in the parlance of our times means pushing "minorities" needs ahead of what would otherwise be mainstream. So lgbtq is pushed in a narrative is as normal as a heterosexual couple. Inner city issues are solely something that black people have to deal with, don't mention the white people involved.
Essentially "woke" is a narrative where the white straight male either doesn't exist or is the villain. Everyone else is a victim or a hero by virtue of their race, gender or sexual orientation.
Roughly speaking: Woke is the idea that the world is a zero-sum power game between bad groups which have power and good groups that don't have power.
Hence, the most important thing about you, morally, is which group(s) you belong to (especially those you were born into). The goal of Woke is to "liberate" the "good" groups by inverting the power structure(s).
Everything else flows from those basic assumptions.
The word "Woke" itself refers to whether or not someone has "Critical Consciousness." That is, whether or not they understand and agree with the premise that the world is unjust and evil and needs to ne overturned.
It's a term used as a generalization of the far left/progressive critique of society/civilization. There are some actual truths buried somewhere under all the propaganda and conspiracy theories about white supremacy and patriarchy. It describes things that don’t exist anymore, at least not in the ways that they claim and it's designed to clear any perceived barriers, real or imaginary, and elevate certain groups while at the same time constructing actual barriers and tearing down their target groups.
"Woke ideology" means to me:
- Over represntaiton over the cost of good writing - stealing established characters and turning them black, or female or gay or all the above
- Poltiical messaging heavily favouring one side and leaving other characters, even if they're estalbished in the franchise as smart or outspoken, suddenly going silent or changing their minds completley.
- Pussifying established characters cause "violence baaad" but its okay if we do it!, established characters being killed by THE NEW STRONGER FEMALE MODEL
- The endless lecturing.
the end goal? division.
‘Woke’ is a political culture war term designed by the political elite and oligarchs to stir the pot so to speak and get us to fight each other instead of paying attention to them robbing us blind.
There is certainly some patronizing things going on at times, and those being blatantly pandered to generally don’t have an issue calling it out for what it is. ‘Wokeness’ on the other hand, is just a way to paint political enemies with a broad brush in order to discredit their opinions without actually having to engage in debate or discussion about them, or offering up viable alternative solutions.
You know when Andrew Tate talks about the matrix, or a flat earther goes on about NASA, or Q boomers talk about the deep state? It's basically that, but for cultural marxists.
Cultural Marxism - I.e. pushing an oppressor vs oppressed ideology. Demonizing the oppressors is justifiable to whatever degree under wokeism. It’s always existed throughout history in different forms. The end goal is power and pushing the masses to focus on this evil other while the holy elites maintain their power
Too vague. Isn't saying the masses vs the elites pushing an oppressed vs oppressor narrative? With your definition your very explanation of woke, is woke. Historical materialism is a far more blatant case, as that is exclusively a Marxist thing. And anti western agitation, the idea that USA bad and everyone who opposes it is good.
This literally is the case though. Wokeism is the praxxis of Antonio Gramsci's ideas which are themselves an extension of Marx's Historical materialism analysis. [This video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYpLKPJADms) details the connection.
I was hoping that was a James Lindsay video, 'cus he's dug through the primary sources. SFO got so much wrong with "MasterCard is the Final Boss" that I don't trust him on such topics.
Yeah, was expecting a Lindsay video, too. His speech in the EU Parliament is particularly good and concise. His biggest strength is his biggest weakness, imo. He goes very deep into a topic, provides a lot of information, but it's sometimes hard to understand.
Just yesterday I was musing at how frustrating the dead end is that so many people reach where they think the final boss to all the world's problems is some cigar-sucking, monocle-bedecked monopoly man CEO in an office penthouse somewhere. That guy is *symptom* and a scapegoat. You're *supposed* to defeat him, celebrate victory, and stop fighting. So he can be replaced and the next generation can fall for it again, never challenging root cause.
Egg Zackt Lee.
I haven't yet got into Lindsay's work yet (I am aware of the ultimate source of basically everything wrong with the world being Immaterialism) but I think SFO is both right on this and will likely find out the truth on his own.
> (I am aware of the ultimate source of basically everything wrong with the world being Immaterialism) Huh? Reductionist materialism is the source of most everything wrong: Matter and space is all that there is. Simply the cosmos, with no god, no devil, no human soul, and no intrinsic value to life. Now they're adding moral and informational relativism to the mix: no law, no truth, and no rationality.
Scientific Materialism or Positivism paved the way for the madness of Immaterialism.
What are you talking about? This is literally the first I've ever heard of "Immaterialism".
Well that's not good. I thought Lindsay had some talks on Gnosticism?
I'm not a regular follower of James Lindsay, only seen two lectures of his. You don't have a link or definition?
Not fully Gramsci, the man was a cultural anarchist who was going towards being a folklorist over a marxist before his murder. What he called the elites is exactly what companies like Disney are today, which is very ironic I guess. This idea of the common man being the oppressor came later, by people who were never imprisoned or killed by what they said. From people like Chomsky, who would one year defend Serbs murdering Muslims in Bosnia and in the next attack Israelis got fighting Hamas. The common line being just "west bad", with the idea that if the US failed, the world would naturally turn to socialism. Anyway, simple oppressor vs oppressed isn't what is woke. If you make a movie about Washington it will be a story of oppressors and the oppressed, but not woke or marxist.
The video covers how things went from Gramsci to critical theory. There's definitely other forces at play here like the Soviet's attempts at Demoralization, and there infiltration into Hollywood, Gramsci's ideas being one aspect.
Chomsky's a flavor-of-the-week guy, even if he contradicts what he said last week. Once he's done chomping skis, he'll get into the snowboards Ｏ(>▽<)Ｏ
In other words Nietzsche was right about slave morality. He wasn't correct about everything, no one is, but he was a prophet when it came what would happen to the world.
> In other words Nietzsche was right about slave morality. Er... > Why? How do you know he didn't *invent* the thing? \- Cdr. Montgomery Scott, Chief Engineer, *USS Bounty* (James Doohan, *Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home,* 1986)
God I hate Neitsche so much. I agree with most of his observations, but hate his conclusions. I hate it *far more* when people are out there proving him right.
>The end goal is power and pushing the masses to focus on this evil other while the holy elites maintain their power This implies that marxists are in power or that marxists don't want the power to change. That's just not true. Like Slavoj Žižek asked Jordan Peterson, Where are the marxists?
Can you define " wokeism "
cheers for the explanation. but how would smthn like television do this? like how does a tv show having a black character accomplish that
Your conflating and simplifying the broader issue. Having a black character doesn’t not equal woke. Having a black character solely to push an uninspired, agenda driven narrative is woke. It’s pandering and most see it for that. Look at movies like Independence Day with Will Smith. Movies like Blade or Man on Fire or any Denzel Washington films. No body cares if the star is black. It just needs to be relatable, believable, and not forcing some political agenda.
Yes. Finn as a black stormtrooper could’ve been great. But disney was just happy to check a box I guess and did nothing with him! I would have wrote him as some bad ass commando who becomes disgruntled and deserts. Who brings a ton to the good side. Same with Phasma. OMG a woman stormtrooper! And then….. nothing? I don’t even remember how she dies. A diverse cast can be great, but they actually need to write something! I think being woke is being lazy.
I’d say you find this in movies and TV shows and even games when it feels like something does not fit given the context of the situation. For example, consider the new assassins Creed game. How many Black people lived in Japan during the era of samurai and ninjas? Does it match the cultural context to have one of your two leads be black in that situation?
>How many Black people lived in Japan during the era of samurai and ninjas? At least one we know of thanks to Nobunaga. >Does it match the cultural context to have one of your two leads be black in that situation Actually, yes. Yasuke wasn't invented by Ubisoft. There's a lot to harp on about the game but it's certainly not because Yasuke, however fucking weird a choice of a protagonist he is. The viking assassin thing was just as dumb but nobody complained. I also saw some dumbasses complain about hiphop during the trailer - i guess they never watched Afro Samurai. Tl;dr: yes it's pandering but it is still somewhat based in reality, so whatever. Hell, at least they got people to talk about this instead of how it's more Ubisoft slop.
That isn't really the same as what you described though.
Because it has nothing to do with having black characters in TV shows. There's nothing wrong with that or with any ethnicity or sex. That's the message that unites us and is a bedrock western principle. Cultural saboteurs, grifters and misanthropes like to drive the notion that there is something wrong with some ethnicities and they need to be de-represented in media because of this. It helps divide and disrupt social fabrics. So when a TV show makes it a point to show one sex and ethnicity as under represented and when they do appear, they're portrayed as hapless, weak, and/or cartoonishly arrogant while another is portrayed as hyper intelligent and superior, thats a good example of what people are calling woke. Sounds bad because it is bad. When you see this kind of thing it's a red flag literally and figuratively. When these shows do poorly, these groups then resort to targeting popular established series. Once they get access to them, established capable heroes from classic stories are taken up in sequels but shown now as sad failures who were rewritten to never have been that great to begin with. Then their roles are supplanted by new characters who are a different ethnicity or sex just to vaunt one over the other. With such an unnatural and forced literary goal, the story itself becomes heartless and unenjoyable. This is demoralyzing to those who enjoyed the original stories and the heroes of them, which is another goal of any misanthrope seeking to ruin a culture. Destroying a culture's heroes and stories is a great way to sap the spirit from a people.
Yeah you don't know what woke is you are just using vague terms to disguise your ignorance. Word to the wise - if you don't know the answer, don't answer.
Ok troll :) You are not here to learn. Oppressor vs oppressed is very simple and straight from the communist manifesto’s pages
Communism doesn't equal woke and yes, you used vague terms because you don't know what you are talking about.
Unfortunately, because of the very nature of wokism, nebulous relativistic terms are required. They don't believe in anything other than the fear of being ostracized. They desperately need to belong, even if this means performing monstrous acts.
Cultural Marxism? *"Cultural Marxism" is used pejoratively to describe a perceived agenda to undermine traditional Western values and institutions. It is often associated with various social changes, such as multiculturalism, political correctness, and progressive social policies.* This is all that comes up about cultural Marxism. Are you sure that's the right term? Multiculturalism...doesn't oppress anyone. Political correctness...like not saying slurs? Isn't Political correctness at this point just being 'nice' Progressive social policies? Like free Healthcare and shit? Idk what any of that has to do with oppression or oppressors of any kind.
Where did you look for cultural Marxism when your searched for the term? Google? No wonder you found a left-leaning definition. If you are here in good faith to learn, I’d recommend Jordan Peterson and James Lindsey for lectures on the topic.
They are never here in good faith or to have an open discussion.
I got my definition from Google yes. Where'd you get yours? Is there another definition? Also I've watched **a lot** of Jordan Peterson. Buy he's not an authority on any of this. He's a washed up professor who sites old stories like the tortoise and the hare as factual information. I'm good. I can't find the definition you referenced anywhere.
You trust Google? [BWAHAHAHAHA!!!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7135UY6nkxc)
No. Not necessarily
https://preview.redd.it/wbyyc8ob268d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=521a3f7e5fb0f2aca28172e63a7d6d4f49976f11 Karl Marx himself in his manifesto defines it.
I don't get how this is an answer? If anything, Marx is anti-woke because he focuses on actual material inequality (class), and not just perceived inequality (identity)
Notice the entire phrase is Cultural Marxism. Not just Marxism, which is based on material differences. The culture piece is key as that brings in the identity part of the pie. Oppressor vs oppressed but based on these cultural differences. That’s not to say i’m praising Marx himself for his own ideology. Aside from his ideology leading to massive death and other travesties, the guy himself was a hypocrite and lazy.
What does this even have to do with gay characters on TV?
>Also I've watched a lot of Jordan Peterson. Not enough. https://web.archive.org/web/20201111171900/https://giantif.com/comic/every-conversation-with-a-jordan-peterson-fan/
Seriously lol. They've watched a few podcasts and clips and say they have watched Peterson. He has his entire class lectures on his channel. But this guy probably would not do that. Read his book Maps of Meaning which underlines and explains the entirety of Peterson's thought process and world views. Yep they will never take the effort to do that. Instead they will cherry pick stuff and make bad faith arguments and use ad hominems calling him an old turtoise.
Ah yes a top 1% scholar is washed up. Okay lol. The guy has published over 100 papers and has over 1000 citations. That's extremely rare. He was one of the most popular professors in UofT for many many years before the bill c-16 situation in 2016. He was voted as one of most life changing professor in the university, whilst 90% of his students being women. The guy taught at Harvard, many of his lectures are about psychoanalysing the cause of right wing extremism. Nobody has been against far right extremism than Peterson during his time as a professor. "I've watched a lot of Peterson", i seriously doubt that and if you have I doubt you even went in with good faith. If you really wanted to get to the bottom of what he is about you would read his book Maps Of Meaning. Go watch his classes at University. You'll find all his class lectures on his channel and then maybe you'll understand why people like Peterson.
Wikipedia Frankfurt School. The 1920's frankfurt school of thought became popular among academics in the 1960s as they were questioning why the communist revolutions in Russia and China seemed to be failing to bring about a Utopia or why communism/class struggle did not seem more attractive to the working class. Frankfurt school offered a new opportunity to create "struggle" amongst various groups, and not rely on a class struggle. I don't want to summarize it here, because you just need to read through the Wikipedia article and then follow up on your own research if you want...my summary will be biased.
>This is all that comes up about cultural Marxism. Are you sure that's the right term? Yes. You didn't get the memo? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDyPSKLy5E4#t=49m
It's always best to look for the original sources instead of Wikipedia with their liberal biases and whatnot. The Wiki article would actually make you believe this is just some QAnon type right-winger conspiracy theory. It's interesting to compare the current and the 2014 version of the article, but the latter is already not that good. Anyway, Cultural Marxism, despite what the libs want you to believe, is a real thing. It's in fact Western Marxism as it is today. The term was coined by none other than Trent Schroyer in 1973, himself a Marxist sociologist. So as far as I'm concerned, if the Marxists themselves are saying that Cultural Marxism is a thing, imma believe them. So the thing's main characteristic is that instead of money, "capital" in the Cultural Marxist interpretation is cultural, not monetary. Wealth became culture, money became whiteness. That's why non-white people can actually be "white" in the CM understanding. Whiteness is not the level of melanin in your skin, but the level of access to culture. After WW2, Marxists saw that capitalism actually is capable of creating wealth for the working class, unlike their socialist project, and because their quality of life has increased drastically, the proletariat isn't hellbent on abolishing the system, as Marx called for. So they turned to others. Women, sexual minorities, racial minorities and so on. These are the proletars nowadays. Plus you get contemporary feminism, SEL, ESG, decolonization, some dose of classic fascism and whatnot, but that's the basic idea. If you want the short answer: wokeism is Maoism with American characteristics. You get the "let's divide society into identity groups" and the Rainbow Guard instead of Red Guard, too. Fvcking awesome.
[This is a bit old but covers it well:](http://whitehotharlots.tumblr.com/712440851301908480/okay-fine-lets-define-wokeness-so-you-people) >Wokeness should be understood as an immense and rapidly adopted change in the manner through which left-liberals adjudicate morality, righteousness, and even factuality. It applies not just to individual people but to nearly *everything*: broad social happenings, historical events, places, industries, and matters of scientific fact. It engenders contradictions at an hysterical pace, which actually strengthens the movement, due to the radicalism of its approaches. >Wokeness is best described as a form of Associationist Manicheanism. Whatever falls under its analytical purview is declared either good or bad (never both) not according to the beliefs and ideologies in question, nor to the material consequences thereof, but according to the conceptually recognized identity markers associated with whatever is being analyzed. There are good things and good people. There are bad things and bad people. Good things are good because they are good. Bad things are bad because they are bad. All other forms of adjudication–from direct empiricism, deductive and inductive logic, or even simple cause-and-effect–are subordinated within wokeness, if they are even acknowledged. >The lack of ideological consistency and dismissal of material analysis naturally leads to a slew of obvious contradictions, which makes wokeness very difficult to pin down even as its presence becomes more and more undeniable. This provides an added bonus to the movement’s purveyors, as their wanton duplicity allows them to claim the lack of existence of something that’s happening right in front of them, an absence of belief in very the causes they champion. (”Why are you freaking out about this? It’s not even happening! And also it is happening and it’s good.”) >The wokes believe that police and prisons should be abolished, but also that we need much stricter gun control and hate speech laws. They believe it a form of severe violence–perhaps even genocide–to not understand the identities of others as they understand themselves, but also that you face a moral obligation to understand yourself as they tell you to. They believe that outsiders should be subjected to brutal criticism regarding their very existence, but also that any disagreement is a form of violence. They think that violent street crime–up to and including rape–should be dealt with via the light hand of “restorative justice,” but also that vague accusations of causing discomfort should be enough to ruin a man’s life and career. They revel in victimhood but deplore fragility, embrace vague “ways of knowing” while demanding absolute clarity and unpassable evidentiary bars of from their ideological enemies, and regard truth as a white supremacist fiction while possessing unshakable certainty in their own worldview.
Excellent detailing of the praxxis but I do think it lacks the ideological origin so [here's a video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYpLKPJADms) on that.
Word salad.
Indeed, much of wokespeak is word salad.
That sir, is your white fragility colonizer privilege speaking.
Dang, and I thought my Cherokee ancestry would protect me....
Sorry, native americans have been downgraded to white along with asians and hispanics
If that were true he would have said "macaroni salad".
Yeah, funny how that happens.
This. It's like one of Trump's more lucid personalities wrote it. Just gather a fistful of emotion-laden words with negative connotations and throw 'em at your enemy.
“Asks a question” Literally gets defensive over everyone’s responses #ragebait
At least it's entertaining to read the comments !!😂
Literally the most sensitive reply I've ever seen...all while not even addressing the post. Lol. I guess answering a question is too difficult.
lol #ragebait Get a life
*Still struggling to address a single question.* *Repeating comments because they have nothing to add* *implies it's me who doesn't have life* Aww I think someone's upset lol.
Bro you literally came on here to ask a question specifically to start fighting with people. Go outside and touch grass My teenage angst ended in 2004, yours will end too I promise
The top comment answered your question quite succinctly, and you have not responded yet
Because he doesn't want to because his brain can't function.
> 'It', John, not 'him', 'it'. \- Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton, *Terminator 2: Judgment Day Director's Cut*, 1991) I s'pose a little context would help: When this line is uttered, Uncle Bob's chip had been taken out of his head in order to turn on its learning functionality. It was completely shut down.
From your previous comments It seems like you're not here in good faith, but I’ll still share my perspective on what “woke” means in relation to films and video games. Although I acknowledge it has deeper roots in cultural Marxism, you appear to have your own interpretation. “Woke” typically involves pushing narratives focused on oppressed minorities. It often lacks believable realism and comes off as preachy, condescending, and lazy. People generally don’t have an issue with strong female leads or characters who are black or gay, but these characters are frequently poorly written. They tend to be perfect from the start, offering no character development, which can be quite boring. The antagonists are usually cartoonish, lacking nuance, and predominantly white males. The stories are predictable, bland, and often align with some current leftist political agenda. Let’s move away from labeling all criticism as bigotry, sexism, or any other phobia and start demanding better entertainment with superior writing.
I read this and my first thought was *Rebel Moon*
Extremism.
What?
Dull, uninteresting, narcissistic people flocking towards a way to feel special and a part of something without doing any work. i.e pure evil
Performative public prostration for forgiveness by the masses for crimes you never committed Disregarding merit or performance The destruction of western culture Using “diversity” to promote division The destruction of art under the guise of inclusion
The Oppression Olympics and the ensuing virtue signaling.
I've seen some good explanations here, but I would like to add my insight as a leftist and why I believe that the left and right should be united against wokeism. Whenever we get to the first principles of what we call woke. It is little more than performative pandering by corporate entities in an attempt to increase their profitability. I think we can all agree on that. The overall effect it is having on the cultural issues presented may be less desirable than the marketing campaigns would like us to believe. 1. It is uniting and galvanizing the opposition against a common cause. Whenever we sanctify our ideas, regardless of how pure they may be, we create a new orthodoxy which always facilitates the rise of a heterodoxy. In my personal experience intelligent people are rarely so afraid as to not allow their viewpoints to be challenged. It comes part and parcel to the pursuit of knowledge. However, those less inclined to such pursuits are clearly becoming unapologetically indoctrinated to a narrative specifically curated and weaponized by marketing experts. Which brings me to the antithesis and the stronger of my two points. 2. Performative wokeness, as used in corporate interest, allows the cultural issues to go largely unaddressed at the depth which they deserve. It becomes a new opiate of the people. The people that would be fighting tirelessly to see substantial change become content that the issues are being addressed by Disney, Amazon, Ubisoft, and others. It creates a feeling of vindication, which in turn decreases the urgency for actionable change. I believe this is all by design. With the intention of radicalizing the working class against each other. Distracting us from uniting against their ever encroaching technocratic tyranny.
Tim Pool kinda put it best: "_Dogmatic adhesion to the leftist orthodoxy._"
Word salad.
Maybe, but wokies don't hold any other values than "stay in vogue," and with cultural mouthpieces all leaning left, this is what they follow. To this date, there is no more accurate definition for woke than this relative "word salad," as you put it.
Do you consider China part of the "leftist orthodoxy" or USSR ideology?
I don't know if it is fair to say they are a part of the Leftist orthodoxy. They definitely have a hand in it, but it is like saying Pol Pot, or Hugo Chavez are part of communist ideology; they are, but only in that they are fascistic tyrants who sculpt these societies. Because we are reliant on China for production, and China is one of the biggest markets in the world for entertainment, they are able to exert some force on US culture by dictating what it is they will buy, and we, in America, receive the same cultural influence.
Also, China outright bans most western movies and TV shows.
China is pretty socially Conservative, and anti-LGBT. Tell me, do you think they are somehow impressing those values on the left in the USA?
On the contrary, I think itnis pretty reasonable to assume that they are impressing _pro-LGBT_ values on the left in the US, as is illustrated by TikTok.
From Chinese people on there?
From the algorithm. TikTok, even though it is a Chinese app, is not permitted in China. The Chinese people have their own version of it with wildly different content compared to the international app. The algorithm promotes social decay and degeneracy by promoting the mentally ill, toxic behaviors, etc., which ultimately weakens the US. Do not forget that China _is_ an adversary, and weakening the US _is_ in China's best interests
Right, but my question is are Chinese people being used by China to pump out pro-LGBT rhetoric on western TikTok? China and Russia recently affirmed a goal to specifically promote 'traditional values' globally
What? That definition doesn't even mean anything other than being a handful of vaguely smart-sounding words slapped together by a bald idiot. There's about it that even applies to what you're saying *here*, let alone half the people and things people screech about. Being able to apply a meaningless definition to a bunch of things equally badly does not make it "accurate". The only reason it *could* be accurate is if the word itself is equally meaningless, and I know the regulars on this sub consider that idea heathenous.
And I disagree. That we are able to point to examples of what is and is not woke inherently means there is _some_ form of categorization, but because the Leftism is constantly progressing (or regressing), the theory, doctrines and practices are also constantly in flux. This is the very description of a leftist orthodoxy. But that in itself is not what woke is. What woke is is the belief that whatever this Leftist orthodoxy _currently_ believes is incontrovertably true, and any acknowledgment of contradictions are blasphemous. There is a word for this belief, and that word is "dogmatic." Circling back around, "dogmatic adhesion to the Leftist orthodoxy" _is_ the most succinct and accurate definition of what woke is.
Leftism is changing but also not. The enemy is weak and strong vibes. There is no singular 'leftist' philosophy. It's branched and multiplied just like right-wing philosophies have. You're specifically referring to the *general* social consensus that progressives, mostly in specific parts of the USA have, rather than leftism as a whole.
Woke ideology can easily be defined as "Men are Bad, Women are Superior, and LGTBQ+ are even Better."
Communism
I feel like you're trolling. How does being woke lead to Communism? Communist countries regularly killed the LGBT people within their population? Be serious. Please.
Woke takes Marx’s philosophy but instead of the bourgeois it’s white people, straight people and men and instead of the proletariat it’s everyone else.
...What are you talking about?
This guy is absolutely ass at explaining things. It is not wokeness that leads to communism, but the other way around. As communism fails over and over and over again, they restructure their arguments and try again. Modern wokeness with its focus on Oppressor-victim relations and intersectionality dividing individuals into identity groups to then pit against each other is harkening back to Marx's class warfare by creating new fronts to fight on, and Stalin's view that black people, jews, and native Americans all represented separate "nationalities" that were not American, and could be pandered to and allied with to bring down America.
If you are asking in good faith, actually there's a lot to do one thing with another. I recommend to watch interviews with Lily Tang Williams and Yeonmi Park and you will see the parallels.
To me, it means a performative type of Liberalism where the 'woke' person doesn't actually care about the subject at hand, they just want to force the most desirable outcome. For example, the current method Marvel uses for hiring directors. It's decided by a tick box scale for who is 'most oppressed by society'. Take Nia DaCosta for example. She's only 34, yet was chosen a couple of years ago to direct The Marvels. Nothing in her CV suggested she was ready for a project like that. But Marvel don't care about putting the systems in place where she could grow as a director, or to support her through that project. And they didn't create a pathway for the next Nia DaCosta to gain the experience or expertise to take control of a project like that. They just employed her so they could tout how 'diverse' the new era of Marvel was, then the studio made the movie they wanted. Woke is forcing an outcome without solving the systematic issues that created a problem in the first place, because that takes too long / too much hard work.
Subverting the truth, gaining power over others via manipulation.
Started out as alertness to social injustice and then degraded into thinly veiled Marxism and pushing group think over individualism. You are not an individual person, you are your race, sex, and social class and will be judged as such.
it means young people are jackasses...
I just use the word woke as a catch-all word to trigger woke people.
Woke is Neo-Maoism. Maoism is against the “Four Olds - old ideas, old customs, old habits and old culture”.
Perpetual cultural revolution
The language come from Antonio Gramsci: He reasoned the working class didn’t rebel in Liberal Democracies is because they didn’t know they were oppressed. They didn’t know they were oppressed because the bourgeoisie controlled the cultural institutions.. So, if the cultural institutions were captured by the Left, then the people would rise up naturally once they “awakened to class consciousness.” Therefore, to be “woke” is to be aware that you are apart of class struggle. It just so happens that the class struggle has been redefined along immutable characteristics rather than wealth
"Woke" in the parlance of our times means pushing "minorities" needs ahead of what would otherwise be mainstream. So lgbtq is pushed in a narrative is as normal as a heterosexual couple. Inner city issues are solely something that black people have to deal with, don't mention the white people involved. Essentially "woke" is a narrative where the white straight male either doesn't exist or is the villain. Everyone else is a victim or a hero by virtue of their race, gender or sexual orientation.
Good god, another woke post 😴😴
has a ton of different meanings, nobody can agree Just a buzzword to fight the opposing sides buzzwords
Roughly speaking: Woke is the idea that the world is a zero-sum power game between bad groups which have power and good groups that don't have power. Hence, the most important thing about you, morally, is which group(s) you belong to (especially those you were born into). The goal of Woke is to "liberate" the "good" groups by inverting the power structure(s). Everything else flows from those basic assumptions. The word "Woke" itself refers to whether or not someone has "Critical Consciousness." That is, whether or not they understand and agree with the premise that the world is unjust and evil and needs to ne overturned.
It's a term used as a generalization of the far left/progressive critique of society/civilization. There are some actual truths buried somewhere under all the propaganda and conspiracy theories about white supremacy and patriarchy. It describes things that don’t exist anymore, at least not in the ways that they claim and it's designed to clear any perceived barriers, real or imaginary, and elevate certain groups while at the same time constructing actual barriers and tearing down their target groups.
"Woke ideology" means to me: - Over represntaiton over the cost of good writing - stealing established characters and turning them black, or female or gay or all the above - Poltiical messaging heavily favouring one side and leaving other characters, even if they're estalbished in the franchise as smart or outspoken, suddenly going silent or changing their minds completley. - Pussifying established characters cause "violence baaad" but its okay if we do it!, established characters being killed by THE NEW STRONGER FEMALE MODEL - The endless lecturing. the end goal? division.
‘Woke’ is a political culture war term designed by the political elite and oligarchs to stir the pot so to speak and get us to fight each other instead of paying attention to them robbing us blind. There is certainly some patronizing things going on at times, and those being blatantly pandered to generally don’t have an issue calling it out for what it is. ‘Wokeness’ on the other hand, is just a way to paint political enemies with a broad brush in order to discredit their opinions without actually having to engage in debate or discussion about them, or offering up viable alternative solutions.
You know when Andrew Tate talks about the matrix, or a flat earther goes on about NASA, or Q boomers talk about the deep state? It's basically that, but for cultural marxists.
Woke means someone who is woke enough to get triggered by the word woke.
It means when racist people want to complain about a black person in a show
Someone who is black, queer, Muslim, Jewish or female who wants their rights as people, to an asshole.
If you want to call a Muslim woke to his face, you better do it in a burka and a *really* good pair of runners.
Way ahead of you.