The end of woke

[Cognisant]

Seems the failure of Buzz Lightyear, the incredible success of Top Gun, Hasbro's inability to crowdfund the Reva lightsaber and the phenomenal success of the Rippaverse crowdfunding campaign have sent Hollywood such a clear message that the tide has finally started to turn against the woke agenda.

Doomcock's sources are saying Disney is drawing up plans to retcon the sequel trilogy into its own isolated timeline, basically making it non-canon.

 

[Hadoblado]

Do you mean just the end of woke in movies?

Either way, I don't think this is the end.

 

[Rook]

i dont know what woke is even more. like 6 - 4months ago i was heavy into videos dissecting the bad stories and practices of modern films/series(esp. the 'woke').... then i realized wtf am i doing i never even cared about star wars, and always hated this DC/Marvel pseudo-religious poorly designed crap(excepting Groo ofc). So why am i watching some dude/dudette watching that shit and complaining about it? I mean either i like something or i don't, and times change, culture changes, so im not gonna waste my time worrying that there's people getting paid big bucks to make lazy or bad stories out there. id rather surround myself, and create, that which I like, why jump in the cesspit if your jacuzzi is full of caviar?

 

[Rook]

I think the one anti-woke(sort, of I guess? idk actually, whatever,what a watery term) commentator i'll always watch tho is Professor Tosspot from Voxis. That dude has a wicked cuntish sense of humor and great production value.

 

[Cognisant]

Do you mean just the end of woke in movies?

And tv shows, and games, and advertisements, and corporate PR bullshit, anything where money is involved... so basically everything.

The civil rights movements will carry on regardless, there will still be people pushing to let gay couples legally marry and feminists speaking out against the treatment of women in Islamic countries and activists against systemic racism in law and governance, that was never really the problem.

It was the Kathleen Kennedys of the world with their twisted critical theories about race and gender trying to denigrate white males out of some insane sense of social justice, that whole shitstorm with Star Wars was her doing and it was intentional, she systematically ruined every male character she could because putting boys "in their place" was her agenda.

Spoiler

Either way, I don't think this is the end.

Not immediately but a turning point has been reached, people have voted with their wallets and with a looming global recession the big movers & shakers cannot afford not to take notice.

So why am i watching some dude/dudette watching that shit and complaining about it? I mean either i like something or i don't, and times change, culture changes, so im not gonna waste my time worrying that there's people getting paid big bucks to make lazy or bad stories out there. id rather surround myself, and create, that which I like, why jump in the cesspit if your jacuzzi is full of caviar?

You're basically asking me "why do you care" and I think that's pretty self evident, as you admitted yourself entertainment media these days has gone to shit and as a consumer of said media and someone who grew up with said media I have an emotional investment in it, that's my stake in the matter.

Now let me ask you the same question, why do you care?
You say you don't but you're here, writing your post, have you simply got nothing else better to do?

 

[Rook]

You're basically asking me "why do you care" and I think that's pretty self evident, as you admitted yourself entertainment media these days has gone to shit and as a consumer of said media and someone who grew up with said media I have an emotional investment in it, that's my stake in the matter.

Now let me ask you the same question, why do you care?
You say you don't but you're here, writing your post, have you simply got nothing else better to do?

hey cog it's cool ; )

I mean i'm not current at all, the most i've watched of modern star wars outside of commentary was like 30 mins of that war one in my then-boss's house at lunch break like 3 years ago? and the last superhero movie i watched.......... ........... like? maybe a superman one? i don't even remmber when, at one of my aunts and i fell alseep during it? i don't remember another one....or did i see the first thor thingy after that? idk man, waiiit yeah my redneck neighbour gave me like a pirated copy among other movies of the thing where thanos fights like ..... the midget from game of thrones, yeah that's the last one npow that i think right, like 2 years ago. thanos has this green girls as child. so yup. i havent even seen a single guardians of the galaxy.

Anyway, basically what i'm saying i used to care about this co i like stories and i like people talking bout stories i guess? even stories i don't like/never will see? so yeah that's where i was now i'm more where i was 4-6 years ago, where i just wanna enjoy what i enjoy i guess?

I'm very isolated from the western culture... war? bickering? shouting matches? physically, and like culuturally, i just grew up different(very conservative despite me being very liberal rn, in the capacity where i use that words on my personality/views?)

So i'm not going against/for the woke agenda here i just realized that, yaknow, i'd rather find interesting stuff, to me at least, old and new(Metal Hurlant comics, Druillet, Moebius, etc.)

Like I get that ppl love different stuff and for someone who grew up being marvel/star wars/star trek/lotr fanatics yeah I'd get it, like, there's an agenda with the medium and ppl speak out against it. But for me.. i realized that of the current corporate media is shit, well, so be it. Indie devs of our era, this internet age, are rising on a tide. There is much else besides the rat loop i guess?

anyway i don't want to disparage anyone's views or tastes i just sorta said where i'm at i guess xD

 

[dr froyd]

probably as millennials - the foremost purveyors of wokeness - become older and get more practical issues to worry about, wokeness will die. Gen-Z seems to have a more balanced view on these things.

i have given quite some thought as to how millennials became infected with such mind worms, but I'm not sure. It seems to be a confluence of many factors:

1: a higher-education bubble with massive inflation in the number of people who did humanities-studies and got exposed to all the usual academic theories regarding social justice etc.
2: emergence of social-media as a medium of political/cultural/social discourse, and subsequently as a medium for shaming and harassing people who do not conform to politically correct narratives.
3: social-media itself, being mostly US-westcoast-based, filtering content in favor of social-justice narratives
4: media, film studios, etc, seeing the risk of ruffling woke feathers and the brand risk it entails, started to conform to their standards and thus propelled the entire thing further.

and many more

 

[Cognisant]

Critical theory is valid, but it's also just the right kind of populist philosophy to be used for point scoring on social media which elevated it into the corpo-political sphere where it was adopted because it looked safe, who doesn't want their brand on the right side of history?

It's happened before and it will happen again, the bullshit industry keeps rebranding itself (marketing, public relations, brand activation, etc) and the bullshitters keep worming their way back into positions of power, until the next economic crisis whereupon they get ousted again.

But the bullshit will be different next time, notice how nobody talks about social justice anymore? It's dead, it was dragged out into the light and the fallacy was dissected for all to see, the same think is happening to wokism now.

People don't hate Reva because they're racists, they hate the character because she's poorly written and no amount of bullshit is going to change the fact that Disney is bleeding money, reality cannot be denied forever, sooner or latter the truth will make itself known.

I wonder what the next wave of bullshit will be?

 

[Daddy]

People don't hate Reva because they're racists, they hate the character because she's poorly written and no amount of bullshit is going to change the fact that Disney is bleeding money, reality cannot be denied forever, sooner or latter the truth will make itself known.

ah shit, I was going to post just to say that. you beat me to it, lol. shit character.

 

[Hadoblado]

Would woke stuff be tolerable if it wasn't poorly written?

i.e. If woke didn't die, but rather was rebuilt into good stories with woke messaging, would that be a win or a lose?

 

[ZenRaiden]

As far as I know, people complain about woke movies, not because of the message they send, but how they send it.
No one ever bothered about woke ever before, until movies central theme became the woke message.
If these woke memes become central theme in movies the movies lose the charm and authenticity of older movies.
There is only so many concepts in movies one can fit and explore fully.
This means if you have movies that try to fit too many concepts into every scene you are liable to lose the viewer interest regardless how woke you are.
For instance movie Matrix is cool, movie, but Matrix 2 and 3 were incredibly complicated, due to the heavy combination of symbols, and metaphors and unless you are very analytical and were inclined to watch the movie trilogy over again you are likely to view those movies as subpar and uninteresting.
Hence why I think Matrix first movie was most popular.

Woke is the same problem. Inserting woke as an extra element in a story just makes it so much harder to follow the ideas and see the point.

For instance you have a movie like As good as it gets.
Its woke, but funny at the same time, while the woke is not shoved down peoples throats or more importantly, you aren't told what to think about it, but it does explore people relations, such as racism, misanthropy, the whole gay guy thing, broke family stuff, and single motherhood as well as money vs healthcare systems and so on.
While this happens it explores characters organically without telling the viewer at every turn..... forcefully that you should think and do things this way, and having an explicit commentary on how it is supposed to be.
Its merely implied and left to viewer.
Modern woke stuff and movies have become a force of moralizing and thus are built around creativity a narrative and forcing it on the viewer, instead of letting the narrative happen and depict it more naturally.

I think even the less intellectual viewers can see this forceful narrative as stupid and not very sensible, meaningful.
Because its a movie, and then to add insult to injury already a fictional movie double downs on this fiction and makes you think? HUH? Is that so?

Well its not relatable, and made conveniently a main foot print in many scenes, it can be funny at some point in movie, but leaves other important things in story less visible and even less interesting.

 

[Cognisant]

Would woke stuff be tolerable if it wasn't poorly written?

Yes, but then it wouldn't be woke.

The persecution of a black character by a white community in the story To Kill A Mockingbird fits the woke agenda, but in that story there's also white people standing up for him and challenging that community's racism and injustice.

The message of the story if it were woke would be "white people suck" but message actually is "people suck, but through compassion and perseverance we can be better", paraphrased not quoted.

What makes woke ideology stand out and ruin everything it touches is that it's hateful.

Can a story be well written and hateful?

 

[Hadoblado]

I think we use the word differently. To me, something is woke if it's preachy. I don't think "White people suck" is something normal to believe on the left. I have seen it, but only in the young and naive. In media it's at most implicit. I see people get real mad over how white people are treated in media while also being dismissive of arguments for positive representation. I've always wanted some harder numbers on this stuff but it'd be a pain to scope it honestly.

I do think something can be well-written and hateful. Rowling and Lovecraft are arguably both considered hateful and skilled. Stonetoss is a genuinely talented comic writer. Hate itself is shallow, but the feeling of hate and the execution of a hateful story can be genuinely brilliant.

 

[Cognisant]

True, Lovecraft's racism seems charmingly quaint now but were he still alive I imagine the man would be utterly intolerable. There's something I call the grimdark effect, if in a movie someone gets chopped in half with a chainsaw the audience barely reacts but if that same person had a knife slowly pushed under a fingernail in a torture scene the audience reacts with fear and revulsion. Lovecraft's racism is weirdly charming because it's so completely out of touch with modern reality, rather than grounding the horror of his story in reality it helps the audience suspend their disbelief an immerse themselves in Lovecraft's dark fantasy.

I think we use the word differently. To me, something is woke if it's preachy.

How familiar are you with Critical Theory?

"white people suck" is a flippant way of putting it but more or less accurate to the basis of woke ideology. Remember when we were talking about Social Justice and I pointed out how the notion of Social Justice itself ends up turning people into racists, sexists, etc. Well it's the same thing with Critical Theory.

 

[Hadoblado]

I'm familiar with a specific pedagogical branch (which I mostly rejected - interesting thoughts but it felt like it leaned heavily on pointing out the flaws in positivism but avoided addressing contemporary science, which I conisdered cowardly) and vaguely familiar with the term as it's used in media.

Can you link to the social justice context? I actually can't place it. On the face of it, I don't agree that woke ideology turns people into bigots, but I'd need to see the context.

 

[Cognisant]

It'll be easier just to repeat it here:

Social Justice, to hold one group accountable for crimes against another, the problem being these crimes (in the moral if not always the strictly legal sense) are committed by individuals against other individuals and holding a group accountable for the actions of the individual is always a miscarriage of justice.

Suppose a black man steals my car am I then entitled to seek recompense from the black community, the vast majority of whom have no knowledge of the crime nor any association with the perpetrator? Of course not, that's ridiculous and blatantly racist and were I a black man assaulted by a racist white man it would be no less racist of me to go seeking recompense from the white community.

That's how Social Justice is inherently racists/sexists/whatever it treats demographics as people and ignores the people in those demographics.

 

[Hadoblado]

Okay, I think we might have some common ground. I think reparations are complicated, and often feel like there's no end point.

If I frame it this way, what do you think?:
My dad stole money from your dad. Both our dads died. I inherited my dads money he stole from your dad. You are now in debt while I am not, both due to no fault of either of us. Is this fair?

To me, this question is complicated. I'd prefer a universal program that supports either poor people or everyone over a specific compensation to indigenous Australians. I'm not opposed to programs that are shown to work that support indigenous communities, but it should be at a community level not individual.

There's a particularly obnoxious person I'm thinking of who pushes white guilt really hard (again, young and naive). I think a lot of progressives are brainlets when it comes to intersectionality especially when it comes to people who are white that are also poor. Like a rich black can't be more privileged than a poor white? Bonkers. This person owned a house before they turned 20.

 

[scorpiomover]

Would woke stuff be tolerable if it wasn't poorly written?

i.e. If woke didn't die, but rather was rebuilt into good stories with woke messaging, would that be a win or a lose?

Yes, but then it wouldn't be woke.

Was thinking the same thing.

To me, something is woke if it's preachy.

If something comes across as preachy, then it's poorly written.

 

[scorpiomover]

Critical theory is valid, but it's also just the right kind of populist philosophy to be used for point scoring on social media

I looked up "Critical theory":

Understanding Critical Theory

Critical theories aim to change and critique society as a whole by finding the underlying assumptions in social life that prevent people from participating in a “true democracy.”

The goal of trying to understand the underlying assumptions of real life interactions, is a worthy one, because it increases your knowledge and understanding.

Examples​

Critical Theories of Gender​

Critical theories of gender are concerned with the ways in which literature and other cultural media reinforce or undermine the economic, political, social, and psychological oppression of people of various genders.

Clearly, this section makes assumptions about the open and public motives for gender differences. In other words, critical theories of gender don't even try to discover the underlying assumptions in social life, and just jump right to the conclusions.

 

[scorpiomover]

Okay, I think we might have some common ground. I think reparations are complicated, and often feel like there's no end point.

If I frame it this way, what do you think?:
My dad stole money from your dad. Both our dads died. I inherited my dads money he stole from your dad. You are now in debt while I am not, both due to no fault of either of us.

Under the law, if you are in receipt of stolen goods, it has to be returned to its rightful owner. If it's previous rightful owner died, then its current rightful owner is his inheritors.

You would have to give the money back. If that means you are now homeless and starving, that is irrelevant. Not giving the money back would be injustice.

Is this fair?

Fairness would be a matter of if you deserve to get welfare and/or charity to prevent you starving death, or whether if would be fair for us let you starve to death, because your dad was a thief.

But letting you keep the money, to prevent you dying of starvation, would still be injustice, because it's not your money.

If you wish to have (social) justice and fairness, then you have to give the money back, and then the state has to increase taxes on everyone, and use the extra money to give you lots of welfare checks.

 

[Rook]

Would woke stuff be tolerable if it wasn't poorly written?

i.e. If woke didn't die, but rather was rebuilt into good stories with woke messaging, would that be a win or a lose?

this is one of the reasons why im not sure what woke is even more, or dont care?. futurama had gayness, so is wokeness is the gay agenda? i mean im 100% ok with people of all sexualities as long as they dont maliciously harm others. Race? I'm not a racist, yeah 'race quotas' in media is an iffy thing but fuck i'm a boer from south africa. i've grown up with racial quotas directed at livelihoods, not acting slots, so for me it's old hat i guess? just not that scary tbh, mere corporate shitbaggery----racial doctrines i fear way more in a government than in a corp.

and I havent really paid for a piece of film media in years, like ive spent money on games but that's it? So as a (((consumer))) like i have no financial investment in whether something is good or not, if i don't like it i delete, but i rarely download something i wont watch. shit, i've merely watched 2 studio ghibli films pout of the whole, i'm way behind on that XD

I've watched Arcance, The Expanse, like a plethora of other shit that can be classed as woke? I mean i think i said in another thread in the end i don't approach art to validate my views but to enjoy myself. Bad art, regardless of the agenda behind it, will simply not grab my attention. If something is really good, i'll watch it regardless of who made it and why.

 

[Rook]

Except Once Upon a Time In Hollywood, I cinema'd that shit, what a fun fucking film

 

[dr froyd]

Critical theory is valid, but it's also just the right kind of populist philosophy to be used for point scoring on social media which elevated it into the corpo-political sphere where it was adopted because it looked safe, who doesn't want their brand on the right side of history?

not that it was the main point of your post, but I would say critical theory is not really a theory - it's more political activism disguised as academic theory. That was one of the impressive achievements of the Frankfurt school - to put theory (or academic sophistry, rather) into action in the streets.

 

[Puffy]

Critical theory is valid, but it's also just the right kind of populist philosophy to be used for point scoring on social media which elevated it into the corpo-political sphere where it was adopted because it looked safe, who doesn't want their brand on the right side of history?

not that it was the main point of your post, but I would say critical theory is not really a theory - it's more political activism disguised as academic theory. That was one of the impressive achievements of the Frankfurt school - to put theory (or academic sophistry, rather) into action in the streets.

I swear that critical theory and the way that people are inducted into it is basically brainwashing. There’s no method to it at all, you just have no choice but to read it over and over as it’s all that’s taught in the humanities. It’s very hard to steer a course for yourself that avoids it. You just keep reading it until you start regurgitating it and it’s style. I had an existential crises and went into a brief solipsist mode (I.e nothing is real outside of me) from internalising it while at university. And it basically only stopped having a hold on my thinking once I left the university environment.

I agree that a lot of Cog’s complaints are against humanities academia really. I appreciate there’s some merit for the disadvantaged groups they advocate for but the method is a load of sophistry as you say. I think basically humanities reached a dead-end, all the progress is being made in scientific departments, so they choose to shit over everything instead.

 

[Cognisant]

If I frame it this way, what do you think?:
My dad stole money from your dad. Both our dads died. I inherited my dads money he stole from your dad. You are now in debt while I am not, both due to no fault of either of us. Is this fair?

Your example is still using individuals, it doesn't matter whether it's fair or not what matters is the letter of the law and whether I have a valid legal claim to the money you now possess.

To me, this question is complicated. I'd prefer a universal program that supports either poor people or everyone over a specific compensation to indigenous Australians.

My thoughts exactly, people are people, it's just that the nature of the problem is that there's a stigma against their race specifically.
It's a really shitty situation.

 

[scorpiomover]

I swear that critical theory and the way that people are inducted into it is basically brainwashing. There’s no method to it at all, you just have no choice but to read it over and over as it’s all that’s taught in the humanities. It’s very hard to steer a course for yourself that avoids it. You just keep reading it until you start regurgitating it and it’s style.

No thinking in it then.

I had an existential crises and went into a brief solipsist mode (I.e nothing is real outside of me) from internalising it while at university. And it basically only stopped having a hold on my thinking once I left the university environment.

If it has no thinking behind it, and is just about regurgitating, then it's the sort of subject that you're only supposed to study when you're drunk.

I agree that a lot of Cog’s complaints are against humanities academia really. I appreciate there’s some merit for the disadvantaged groups they advocate for but the method is a load of sophistry as you say.

If you keep telling elephants that society discriminates against elephants, then they'll accept low wages, because you've convinced them that even if they keep looking for jobs with other employers, they won't find anyone who will be willing to pay them a decent wage.

Also, if you keep telling elephants that elephants get beaten and raped by their partners, then they'll come to assume that it's the norm and the police won't do anything about it. Then the elephants will let you rape and beat them, and won't even report it to the police.

But, both of those scenarios would be hugely advantageous for anyone who wants to employ elephants or wants to have sex with elephants or have an elephant as a partner, because the elephants will then let the abusers do whatever they want to the elephants.

I think basically humanities reached a dead-end, all the progress is being made in scientific departments, so they choose to shit over everything instead.

I see lots of areas in the humanities making huge amounts of progress: gender studies, anti-racism, politcs, and lots of general writing on the internet.

So it seems to me that the humanities are highly productive these days: it's just more along the lines of trying to make people believe certain things, vote certain ways, support certain causes, and buy products from certain companies.

 

[Puffy]

I think basically humanities reached a dead-end, all the progress is being made in scientific departments, so they choose to shit over everything instead.

I see lots of areas in the humanities making huge amounts of progress: gender studies, anti-racism, politcs, and lots of general writing on the internet.

So it seems to me that the humanities are highly productive these days: it's just more along the lines of trying to make people believe certain things, vote certain ways, support certain causes, and buy products from certain companies.

These things you highlight fall under the same rubric as critical theory as far as I'm aware. I agree as mentioned that there's benefit for the disadvantaged groups they're advocating for in providing a forum to discuss these issues. Do we need to spend 4 years accumulating student debt doing that? Maybe some would like to, but I don't think everyone with an interest in the humanities should have to.

A part of the problem is that there isn't any intellectual rigour to their methods. It's just word spaghetti that someone's conjured up in a library.

For example, in gender studies classes I sat in on I never saw any reference to any serious review into the science or biology of gender and how that supports or contradicts their ideas. I didn't even see any reference to any qualitative research of "we interviewed x number of people, performed a thematic analysis and found..." It's just a theory that a professor has come up with from reading a load of other critical theory papers in a heavily silo'd academic environment. They literally never leave their library, it's a heavily biased way of working and is just really dumb.

So critical theory is all about text. The reality of critical theory is limited to text, the library, as text is the only instrument that the humanities academic has. They read texts and regurgitate texts, that's their job. Ideas like "all gender is a social construct" or Derrida's deconstructionism can only emerge in an environment where the only reality is text. They do this as text is the last bastion of humanities, the only area they have any sway in. Once you start testing ideas like deconstructionism against reality with other instruments it's clear that it's nonsense.

 

[scorpiomover]

These things you highlight fall under the same rubric as critical theory as far as I'm aware. I agree as mentioned that there's benefit for the disadvantaged groups they're advocating for in providing a forum to discuss these issues.

How do you know that there are benefits for the groups they're advocating for? Because these people tell you there must be?

Do we need to spend 4 years accumulating student debt doing that? Maybe some would like to, but I don't think everyone with an interest in the humanities should have to.

I agree. But you have to anyway. Have you considered that might be because that's the point of those courses in the humanities in the modern day, to push these agendas?

A part of the problem is that there isn't any intellectual rigour to their methods. It's just word spaghetti that someone's conjured up in a library.

Then you have zero basis to think that these people who say there is benefit for the groups they're advocating for, have any basis for their views. Thus, there is zero reason to suppose that there are benefits for the groups they're advocating for.

It might still be possible that there are benefits for the groups they're advocating for. But the answer to that question needs to worked out, and worked out rigorously.

For example, in gender studies classes I sat in on I never saw any reference to any serious review into the science or biology of gender and how that supports or contradicts their ideas. I didn't even see any reference to any qualitative research of "we interviewed x number of people, performed a thematic analysis and found..." It's just a theory that a professor has come up with from reading a load of other critical theory papers in a heavily silo'd academic environment. They literally never leave their library, it's a heavily biased way of working and is just really dumb.

So critical theory is all about text. The reality of critical theory is limited to text, the library, as text is the only instrument that the humanities academic has. They read texts and regurgitate texts, that's their job. Ideas like "all gender is a social construct" or Derrida's deconstructionism can only emerge in an environment where the only reality is text. They do this as text is the last bastion of humanities, the only area they have any sway in.

Religious Jews have been analysing the text of the Talmud in Europe and other Western countries, for 1,000 years. It requires an extremely high level of rigour, because you can read the same sentence in several different ways, and so you have to be careful to make sure that you have the correct interpretation, by rigorous analysis.

So if you're telling me that your humanity courses have no rigour, then they have no basis for their analysis of the texts they cite.