Pentagon and CIA shaped thousands of Hollywood movies into effective propaganda

Perhaps next you'll ask me to list three NSA zero-days?

Then I think you can look back at recent events from the past decade or more and see the impact of this. Whether you want to start with Kazakhstan this past week, the way opposing groups were targeted to fight each other in real life like was seen in Houston, or the reaction to a "youtube video" during Benghazi in Libya, the way that Trump and Cambridge Analytica kind of took over the GOP, or maybe even how Obama went from a relatively unknown politician to having a cult of personality around him a few months later. Another part of the psychological aspect of it is something called the information-action ratio. Basically people are overwhelmed with information that they can do absolutely nothing about. This leads to certain emotional responses caused by feeling a loss of control that also makes people more easily manipulated by what they are fed by these systems.

It's not much of a conspiracy if you have used technology and tried to pay attention to how it makes you feel and act at times. This is a large part of how so many people became radicalized from recommendation engines and targeted advertisements. It's like mind hacking in a way. But that's just like, my opinion, man.

I grew up during a time when quite a few witnesses were still alive and I did talk to some, no need to read a history book (although it definitely helps your overall formation as a reasonable person).

Also, the systematic destruction of civilian targets by allied bombing campaigns: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_bombing_directive

Another example is the systematic starvation of German populace in the post-war years, due to the allord policy of deindustrialization. The average daily food intake was estimated at 1000kcal! And it was not a matter of food scarcity - it was a deliberate allied policy:

>Germany received many offers from Western European nations to trade food for desperately needed coal and steel. Neither the Italians nor the Dutch could sell the vegetables that they had previously sold in Germany, with the consequence that the Dutch had to destroy considerable proportions of their crop. Denmark offered 150 tons of lard a month; Turkey offered hazelnuts; Norway offered fish and fish oil; Sweden offered considerable amounts of fats. However, the Allies disallowed the Germans to trade.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_plans_for_German_indu...

In what way is "but CCP bad" an appropriate response to "another old Chinese lady brutally attacked on the street"?

Also bold of us to assume the media is honest about the CCP when it is not even honest about domestic politicians.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/09/yemen-us-made...

Raytheon lobbies for Mideast arm sales. In the hierarchy of shit they need to be ethical on, LGBTQ rights is not really top of the list. It’s nice though, nonetheless.

No connection to Hollywood of course, Raytheon would love nothing more than war never being mentioned. The more they can sell outside of the US and not have anyone know it’s causing genocide in places like Yemen, the better.

Once it stops being about fighting back against the black community being murdered in broad daylight by police or striking for $15/hour and starts being about "unthreatening-to-state-and-capital" topics like pronoun choice and diversity quotas in the C suite it starts to look a bit ridiculous.

And thats the point where a lot people start to hear about it and reject what they see.

Forgive me if you were being genuine, but frequently when I see the word used on the internet, I see replies from people who seem utterly bewildered and claim that they really want to know what the word means. But it's trivial to find out what this or any other word or slang word means with a simple internet search, so it doesn't really seem like they care to learn what it means but rather they are trying to make a statement or trying to use cheap rhetoric to cast aspersion on the post being replied to without actually addressing it in any coherent way. Then when definitions are proffered, they are often not met with gratitude and understanding but with argumentation -- suddenly they do know what it means.

EDIT: Ah I misread your post you indeed were not asking sincerely, you were actually feigning ignorance as I thought. Worse, you're misrepresenting what the word means and baselessly attacking the parent poster as a bigot, and you have refused to walk that back or provide any evidence for these insults. This is a good example of behavior that is described as wokeism.

> they’re complaining about things that I think are good.

That's not what woke means though, it's clearly about hypocrisy and insincerity and performative pointless acts or gestures. Did you not read the definition I gave you, or were you being insincere when you asked about the meaning of the word in the first place? Also, the parent poster did not seem to be complaining about any of the things you are talking about here, if you are making that claim that they are bigoted it's very serious I hope you have some good reason to do so. I would go so far as to say it's totally against the site rules so you need to clarify.

I am not the GP but this sort of "this is good"/"you are a bad person" litany is exactly what is off-putting to many people.

I won't even comment on "The real reason I asked was to get people on here to reveal what kind of progress they are against."...

And as for entertainment strong moral undertones are enemies of fun.

If women are a group historically discriminated against by virtue of their sex (female, different physicality, different reproductive role) rather than by their gender (feminine, caring, pretty, submissive, domestic, …) then is the fusing of sex and gender truly progressive? Is it medically, scientifically or philosophically true to assert TWAW, or is it a well-intentioned social fiction?

Like you, I believe there’s much to be commended in “woke” (including the full acceptance of people who wish to live as if they were the other sex, or of no sex) but I think the mechanism (identity politics, intersectionality) and the philosophy (postmodernist) are unhelpful and irrational.

Wokeism is in part an ideology and a set of political goals, but it is also a means of competition. It is the foundation for a system of verbal duelling that determines who gets the limited number of spots at the top of our hierarchy. Like the Edwardian's preoccupation with gossip and scandal or the Aztec's ritual sacrifice of losing ullamaliztli players, it's a means for an overproduced elite to thin its ranks. An excellent example of Wokeness-as-duelling is the story of Annamie Paul, a Canadian politician. Annamie Paul was a woman and lawyer from a dark-skinned Jewish family - this will become important later - who won leadership of the Canadian Green Party. From a Woke standpoint that was the desired outcome, a black woman can become leader of a political party, aren't we wonderful. But winning a position of power and wielding it well are two different things, and Annamie Paul faced a leadership challenge over her position on Israel-Palestine. It was quite mainstream for a western country, but not for Canadian Green party voters. As the back-and-forth turned acrimonious, she alleged her critics were motivated by racism. Public support for the Green party, which had been making slow advances over the preceding years, collapsed spectacularly in the next election.

It's not hard to see, with the benefit of standing outside the fray, what Annamie Paul's mistake was. A Jewish woman, asked about the situation of the Palestinian people, can only acknowledge her privilege, and if she wishes to make no concessions she must pay the political price of not using her privilege to benefit the less fortunate. She could not, in that context, allege racism because in the context of that particular debate, she was of the privileged race - technically religion, but in that context the distinction wasn't important. The rules of Woke competition are by design self-contradictory, but they are still taken seriously, and everyone could see that she had violated them. So she lost the position she had attained, and given the hit to her reputation will need more effort and luck than she spent to get it if she is to attain another as lofty.

Now, what is wrong with any of that? In my opinion, nothing. For Annamie Paul I can only say 'live by the sword, die by the sword', if she'd been able to demonstrate genuine compassion for Palestine she could have walked out of that trap as easily as she walked in. As for the broader effect on society, Woke competition actually selects for the qualities I'd want in my elite. Verbal intelligence, compassion, and tolerating paradox are all good qualities for an elite class to possess. Further, while it's easy for a hypocrite to use it to attain higher rank, it's very hard to retain said rank unless one genuinely displays the virtues Wokeness demands. But, and of course there's a but, it is a system that produces winners and losers, and the losers get to have a say. In particular, straight white men are shut out of a lot of targeted benefits and mutual aide societies others have access to, while being discouraged from forming our own. It takes the arrogance of a rich white man to look at a system like Woke competition and say, "I can win that". So of course, poor white men don't think it's a game worth playing, and when they denounce the structure of the game, any rich white man - or rich white woman for that matter - who tries to argue against them finds themselves in the same position as Annamie Paul, punching down in public. That, of course, makes it worthwhile for people winning the game to use said PWM as a vector to demonstrate their own compassion and attack their competition.

This only changes when the rules of the game adjust to be more reflective of the actual difference between rich and poor. Woke competition does allow for a change of the rules, but it's currently not clear whether such an adjustment would require an overhaul or a tweak. People who think it would require an overhaul often allege that a key goal of woke competition is to fracture the poor along intersectional lines to prevent them making common cause against the rich. If true, that's of course an unforgivable transgression that may require replacing Woke Competition with something else entirely. Those of us who think it might require only a tweak think that this is an artefact of the unconscious privilege of the rich, which they will remedy with all haste once it is brought to their attention.

Over time, as some of this progressive-minded population became more extreme/absurd, the term came to represent that absurdity and became more of an epithet. Students protesting because they believed the proprietor of a shop on campus was racist when he physically stopped some students attempting to shoplift, because they were black. A rich black female college student who entered a cafeteria was asked to leave, and became the center of a large movement (with ACLU support) outraged at being targeted for eating while black, resulting in the staff members being fired. Members of the ACLU supporting a campaign to censor a book for trans-related wrongthink. These sorts of excesses began to be associated with the term, so now, while it can be used both ways, is more commonly associated with the loud, militant, and extremist portions of the progressive movement, and is generally used as a derogatory term.

It basically means hypocrisy and/or insincerity toward popular progressive causes. That's the meaning. There's also an older one which has mostly been displaced as far as I'm aware, but if it's still used it also has a pretty well defined meaning. In context, at least in this context, it was not ambiguous which meaning was being used.

In the 90s Will Smith starred in Independence Day, and absolutely no one complained (as far as I know) because Will Smith is awesome and he deserved the role. See also Blade from the same era.

People get upset when it's clear that a person has been chosen for a role/position just because of their skin colour/gender/sexuality rather than their talent. I can't actually think of any movies that have done this, but plenty of TV shows (Star Trek Discovery).

Obviously some roles require the person to be of a certain race for it to appear authentic. Lots of older films used white actors for middle Eastern roles, which is seen as "white washing" and is therefore wrong. The latest Ghost in the Shell race swapped the main character to be American, and was rightly called out for doing so.

Basically we should be allowed to criticize both ways...

There are many long magazine articles discussing whether wokeness is a religion or cult. Either way, it has completely derailed all political discourse for the benefit of the most privileged (as defined by money).

And in the media world, it means that everything is now over-the-top preachy, and that scoring political points has become more important than making good art. Sucks, but at least there are plenty of classic movies to re-watch.

"The terms woke capitalism and woke-washing have arisen to describe companies who signal support for progressive causes as a substitute for genuine reform. By 2020, parts of the political center and right wing in several Western countries were using the term woke, often in an ironic way, as an insult for various progressive or leftist movements and ideologies perceived as over-zealous, performative, or insincere."

But perhaps you knew that already.

And by the way, any cult of group of thoughts, will define themselves as "we are for the good and against the evil; therefore, what exactly do you disagree with ? are you for the evil ?"

It's probably also an issue of writing - walking the line between realism and cool isn't easy, doubly so if the writers aren't themselves technical people. People are still referencing Mcguyver, but nobody's had the hubris to try and reboot that classic.

The only recent and decent "IT guy" series was Mr. Robot and the differences from any other field are obvious. The main "IT guy"-character is presented as socially dysfunctional. The supporting IT-people are tiny little gears turning in their cubicles.

Military - always fighting in the harshest condition, against the toughest enemies, saving the world.

Lawyers - good looking people, living a lavish lifestyle in corner offices of New York skyscrapers, having the cool monologues that wow the courtroom.

Doctors - brilliant but otherwise normal people facing very difficult decisions every day, making brilliant decisions to save life after life, and dealing with loss.

Spies - absolutely superhuman skills and knowledge, constantly capable of turning the tide of any way with a single person concentrated effort. (The more you go towards the "military/spy" side of things, the more likely it becomes about superhumans.)

IT focused movies/characters are probably just not attractive to the wider audience. Or at least nobody really proved that they can be. So even in Mr. Robot didn't focus on the hacking as much as on the larger plot. It simply made a very realistic point of that hacking.

Done well, it can be a vehicle for criticising one's own culture in a constructive way. Done poorly, it can be a vehicle for oikophobia and gatekeeping, a means of distinguishing oneself from the naively patriotic proletariate.

I don't know anymore.

In some circles / historically it is used to denote liberal/progressive agenda. It's sometimes (often?) meant to be negative/slur, just like some people will use "Socialist!!!" believing it a derogatory term.

However, increasingly it's used as generic term in various conspiracy circles - "Wake up to the truth!" transmogrified to "Woke!". So Woke will be claimed by those who understand the truth about Illuminati/Freemasons/Rothchilds/Vaccines/5G/EM/Israel/etcetcetc.

So between whatever original use there may have been designed, vs today's actual usage on the interwebs, I don't personally find it a useful nomenclature that I can interpret on its own with any degree of confidence. 90% of the time I find it in short rambling sentences of the format of either "Their pushing their fascist woke agenda!!!" or "be woke, don't be sheeple". I generally don't find the term used in any discussion that ends up being in any way productive or enlightening.

(note also my experience that, anybody using it, in any of the above and myriad other senses/terms, will strongly believe their is the only obvious correct usage and resent the notion that there's lack of clarity)

Let's take feminism for example, which is generally considered as pertaining to woke culture, what do feminists want? Well you have sex-positive feminists, sex-negative feminists, you've got the ones that want to legalize sex work, the ones who don't, abortion at every stage no matter the circumstance, abortion in hospitals depending on term, trans inclusive, trans exclusive, men inclusive, men exclusive, men-can-only-be-allies... And I'm not even mentioning different waves of feminism.

It's hard to nail down what it pushes, exactly, but I'd say that a focus on identity politics as opposed to economic issues is a constant. A character existing solely because of their identity, disregarding if it adds anything is, I'd say, peak wokeism.

And I've no doubt many will disagree with that, as some others will with any other take.

I'm just saying that it was not actually something that people "found out" after the cold war and it wasn't specific to the Baltic nations nor the US or USSR. All nuclear capable superpowers had set potential targets which would have killed tens of millions of civilians. Singling out some of the countries occupied by the USSR (Estonia/Latvia/Lithuania) is minimizing the situation IMO :)

"republic" and "democracy" are in no way mutually exclusive terms.

On the contrary, the overlap very often. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic for a definition.