Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
i'm subscribed to this for some reason, even if i didn't post anything or click anything. huh. weird.
but maybe, some input.
besides the fact that a lot of the bad films that are "woke" i guess are often hugely succesful (esp the big profile "bad" "woke" i guess), i want to say two things.
first, half-hearted pandering in bad movies is not something "woke" people usually like. it's very clear when it's cynical. like, from what i can gather, eg the emoji movie was so tone deaf it annoyed both the left and the right. (who remembers that movie lol). when segments of the left wants good representation, then part of that, in a movie, is to have a good movie. we cringe at forced stuff too, y'know. the thread has presented a number of examples that demonstrate that it can be done competently without being forced.
second, on "woke", let me dig up my old thread
basically "woke" is used to mean whatever you want it to mean, depending which of the left you apply it to, as long as it's reasonably against your beliefs in that area. there are two problems here - first, "woke" conglomerates a lot of people that have incompatible worldviews and that often don't work for the same goals (so it's both incompatible in ideal and praxis) - second,since "woke" people barely call themselves "woke" anymore (they did for a short while after it was snatched from AAVE), it has wholly been coopted as an exonym. so it doesn't mean anything except "vaguely left" and "i don't like it". this means, in extension, that it's not actually a trend or conspiracy or whatever in eg the movie industry, but a question of rhetoric that one cannot use in anything but bad faith: it can only be bad if the left is bad. whatever the left believes, how they disagree with each other, how powerless they actually are, doesn't matter. still a marching religion conspiracy danger noodle destroying my star wars.
the fact that zardnaar recognizes the usage as such and still for some forsaken reason unironically uses it is a shining example of how baffling this usage is, esp for someone who i think votes centre-left politically. it's buying into rhetoric that has no reflection on the world as reality, but is instead solely useful for projecting power.
like, i believe zard says he uses it because it's useful. and i agree. but useful for what?
but maybe, some input.
besides the fact that a lot of the bad films that are "woke" i guess are often hugely succesful (esp the big profile "bad" "woke" i guess), i want to say two things.
first, half-hearted pandering in bad movies is not something "woke" people usually like. it's very clear when it's cynical. like, from what i can gather, eg the emoji movie was so tone deaf it annoyed both the left and the right. (who remembers that movie lol). when segments of the left wants good representation, then part of that, in a movie, is to have a good movie. we cringe at forced stuff too, y'know. the thread has presented a number of examples that demonstrate that it can be done competently without being forced.
second, on "woke", let me dig up my old thread
"Wokeist" - When people talk about progressivism without acquaintance
Picking up on TMIT's claim in another thread, I think it's worth talking about. wokeism is real, functions something like one of the worst religions in world history (not literally the worst, but pretty bad), and is a major detriment to society generally. I'm going with a short version and a...
forums.civfanatics.com
basically "woke" is used to mean whatever you want it to mean, depending which of the left you apply it to, as long as it's reasonably against your beliefs in that area. there are two problems here - first, "woke" conglomerates a lot of people that have incompatible worldviews and that often don't work for the same goals (so it's both incompatible in ideal and praxis) - second,since "woke" people barely call themselves "woke" anymore (they did for a short while after it was snatched from AAVE), it has wholly been coopted as an exonym. so it doesn't mean anything except "vaguely left" and "i don't like it". this means, in extension, that it's not actually a trend or conspiracy or whatever in eg the movie industry, but a question of rhetoric that one cannot use in anything but bad faith: it can only be bad if the left is bad. whatever the left believes, how they disagree with each other, how powerless they actually are, doesn't matter. still a marching religion conspiracy danger noodle destroying my star wars.
the fact that zardnaar recognizes the usage as such and still for some forsaken reason unironically uses it is a shining example of how baffling this usage is, esp for someone who i think votes centre-left politically. it's buying into rhetoric that has no reflection on the world as reality, but is instead solely useful for projecting power.
like, i believe zard says he uses it because it's useful. and i agree. but useful for what?
Last edited: