3 ms·

I did read the web link you sent but I am genuinely unsure how often people mean “any minor progressive thing is wokeism” or they mean “token gestures that are

I did read the web link you sent but I am genuinely unsure how often people mean “any minor progressive thing is wokeism” or they mean “token gestures that are ultimately meaningless” is wokeism. And what is meaningless to one person could be very meaningful to another. I mentioned the bigotry because honest to god that’s the times where I hear people use it - complaining about the most basic progressive representation. It really seems (to me) like people who use it tend to be straight white men who don’t like that some spaces are making room for people who aren’t like them. But the term isn’t used in my circles, so I really don’t know what the “common” use is.

throwawaylinux 5y ago
- Retric 5y ago
  Hollywood is not some united single entity. I’ve seen some powerful anti gun movies, and movies that treat them like a fetish. At the end of the day it’s a business and it’s more profitable to make movies people want to see. Be that Saw - for some people or Barney's Great Adventure for a different audience.
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    Fortunately my question is not predicated on Hollywood being some united single entity so the question is trivial to answer in good faith if you want to.
    - Retric 5y ago
      Ok, then trivially the answer is no. There is nothing hypocritical about denouncing A while someone else does X.
      - throwawaylinux 5y ago
- notahacker 5y ago
  > I'll try an easier and more concrete one to help you out. Do you think Hollywood is at all hypocritical or insincere about their collective rhetoric about gun violence while also producing movies that glorify guns and people solving their problems with violence? The OP's argument was that modern movies are political propaganda supporting "wokeism", so a concrete example where Hollywood movies are often - intentionally or otherwise - effective propaganda for America's gun glorification and violent self defence lobby despite actors involved in such projects insisting they are personally against gun violence seems to be the direct opposite. On the other hand, many people [not involved in this thread] have cited the example of a black, female 007 as 'wokeism'. This does not appear to be an example of Hollywood filmmakers being insincere in their belief that black females should be cast in roles traditionally not occupied by black female actors, and it's rather more evident some objectors for whatever reason simply don't want them cast in that role.
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    - notahacker 5y ago
      > Direct opposite of what? Hollywood films allegedly being "woke propaganda", which was the claim which started this "what do you mean by woke?" subthread. Films which glorify guns are categorically not examples of Hollywood anti-gun propaganda; if they are any sort of propaganda at all, as opposed to just stuff that sells, they are clearly very non-'woke' pro-gun propaganda. > I don't think it's necessarily an example of that although for some people perhaps it is. But the fact that Hollywood has excluded such people from such roles and then they take a specific role that was developed by a white man and put a black woman into it "because it's time", and make a big noise about how wonderful they are for doing such a thing is near the epitome of insincerity and hypocrisy in my opinion. I don't have a problem with them deviating from a checklist of skin color, genitalia, and sexual preferences for traditional roles like this (are all the previous 007s the same height, same hair color, same eye color?), I have a problem with them endlessly going on about how wonderful they are, how all those other people are racist and sexist, for us only to find out that hey it's not the redneck from West Virginia who has been writing and producing and acting in these exclusionary Bond movies all these years. Turns out it was Hollywood all along. And the "fix" they congratulate themselves for is not to actually put effort into develop characters and roles and stories that different people have the opportunity to make their own and different audiences can build a following with. They just do the cheap "this character is now a black woman" thing. I realize not everybody sees it that way, but that's my opinion and I don't see how it's invalid or based on bigotry Do I think Hollywood not casting certain people was a Hollywood decision? Yes. Do I think they deserve massive congratulations for casting Lashana Lynch? No. And if you want to argue the black 007 character wasn't actually that great or big a deal, fine. I'd largely agree with you on both points. But for many years prior to Lashana Lynch being cast, there were people insisting that the idea of a black 007 was "woke propaganda or "political correctness gone mad" that should be opposed. I think it's something of a heroic stretch to suggest that their real objection of the anti-'woke' crowd to the casting of a black 007 was that Hollywood ought to have done it much earlier.

throwawaylinux 5y ago

Retric 5y ago
Hollywood is not some united single entity. I’ve seen some powerful anti gun movies, and movies that treat them like a fetish. At the end of the day it’s a business and it’s more profitable to make movies people want to see. Be that Saw - for some people or Barney's Great Adventure for a different audience.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  Fortunately my question is not predicated on Hollywood being some united single entity so the question is trivial to answer in good faith if you want to.
  - Retric 5y ago
    Ok, then trivially the answer is no. There is nothing hypocritical about denouncing A while someone else does X.
    - throwawaylinux 5y ago
notahacker 5y ago
> I'll try an easier and more concrete one to help you out. Do you think Hollywood is at all hypocritical or insincere about their collective rhetoric about gun violence while also producing movies that glorify guns and people solving their problems with violence? The OP's argument was that modern movies are political propaganda supporting "wokeism", so a concrete example where Hollywood movies are often - intentionally or otherwise - effective propaganda for America's gun glorification and violent self defence lobby despite actors involved in such projects insisting they are personally against gun violence seems to be the direct opposite. On the other hand, many people [not involved in this thread] have cited the example of a black, female 007 as 'wokeism'. This does not appear to be an example of Hollywood filmmakers being insincere in their belief that black females should be cast in roles traditionally not occupied by black female actors, and it's rather more evident some objectors for whatever reason simply don't want them cast in that role.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  - notahacker 5y ago
    > Direct opposite of what? Hollywood films allegedly being "woke propaganda", which was the claim which started this "what do you mean by woke?" subthread. Films which glorify guns are categorically not examples of Hollywood anti-gun propaganda; if they are any sort of propaganda at all, as opposed to just stuff that sells, they are clearly very non-'woke' pro-gun propaganda. > I don't think it's necessarily an example of that although for some people perhaps it is. But the fact that Hollywood has excluded such people from such roles and then they take a specific role that was developed by a white man and put a black woman into it "because it's time", and make a big noise about how wonderful they are for doing such a thing is near the epitome of insincerity and hypocrisy in my opinion. I don't have a problem with them deviating from a checklist of skin color, genitalia, and sexual preferences for traditional roles like this (are all the previous 007s the same height, same hair color, same eye color?), I have a problem with them endlessly going on about how wonderful they are, how all those other people are racist and sexist, for us only to find out that hey it's not the redneck from West Virginia who has been writing and producing and acting in these exclusionary Bond movies all these years. Turns out it was Hollywood all along. And the "fix" they congratulate themselves for is not to actually put effort into develop characters and roles and stories that different people have the opportunity to make their own and different audiences can build a following with. They just do the cheap "this character is now a black woman" thing. I realize not everybody sees it that way, but that's my opinion and I don't see how it's invalid or based on bigotry Do I think Hollywood not casting certain people was a Hollywood decision? Yes. Do I think they deserve massive congratulations for casting Lashana Lynch? No. And if you want to argue the black 007 character wasn't actually that great or big a deal, fine. I'd largely agree with you on both points. But for many years prior to Lashana Lynch being cast, there were people insisting that the idea of a black 007 was "woke propaganda or "political correctness gone mad" that should be opposed. I think it's something of a heroic stretch to suggest that their real objection of the anti-'woke' crowd to the casting of a black 007 was that Hollywood ought to have done it much earlier.