"Wokeist" - When people talk about progressivism without acquaintance

[João III]

Why? Those same dollars will still be spent purchasing an alternative to what's being boycotted.

I understand that this ends badly because it's an oscillating effort that eventually causes a destabilization. But that's a function of all systems with individual actors. Unless 'they' stop doing it first, it's necessarily part of the the toolkit.

Even if there would be aggregate benefit to 'both sides' doing it less, there's no individual motivation to subsidize something you think is harmful.

When I watch a film or show and I come to the conclusion that I disagree with it, or even find it's content offensive, I just stop watching. I don't feel a need to rally a mob to lead a boycott cause ultimately I appreciate that someone was willing to push the envelope and try something new instead of playing it safe. And there are plenty of films with messaging I disagree with but I still own a copy because I appreciate it for what it is

Edit: and the entire game-theory is confounded if someone is making a 'reasonable appeal' to people they disagree with to boycott less. Everyone within fallout range of nuclear targets understand the value of de-escalation and disarmament, but those are negotiations between governments with verifiable conditions. But, at the level the game is played, getting your 'opponents' to 'try less hard' is the same as getting your own side to try harder, because it's the results that matter.

The result is just mutually assured destruction and everyone's left with braindead, unchallenging content

LOL like the Hays code was the end of the majority dictating what would go on screen.

The code was devised by two Catholics in the United States. Catholics are hardly the majority in the US

When the white majority decide they don't like a movie, they don'T need to organize a boycott. It just tanks from sheer word of mouth and demographic weight. Majority disapproval has tanked far more series, movies, studios, shows and what have you than all the boycott in the world in the past several decades. They also convinced executives for decades that women superheroes films were untenable, and non-white superheroes likewise, by sheer economic weight, without having to organize a deliberate boycott of any sort.

The only difference between minorities and the majority here is that the later need to organize their boycott for their opinions of a show to have an economic impact. When the majority dislikes something, the economic impact is instantaneous.

Boycott bring the field a little closer to even between minorities and majority (and still a far cry from: majority preferences still have far much weight).

Film studios interfering and watering down a film to make it "more appealing" cause they think it'll be more profitable is bad, whether it's majority, minority, or whoever pushing for it

I do agree with you that many people mistake depiction for endorsement. That's an ongoing problem especially among the group I previously described. THAT said. Depiction in and of itself can be a problem when it's depiction of prejudicial stereotypes. And the best people to tell you what's a prejudicial stereotype you shouldn't propagate or disturb...are the people the stereotype is about.

Depiction in and of itself isn't the problem, intent matters

So, let me get this straight. The problem isn't people deciding what to consume & how, based on their beliefs, it's that they might decide what to consume & how based on beliefs you personally don't agree with??? Do I have that about right?

No. Like I said above, when I don't like what I'm watching, I have no desire to rally a boycott; I just turn it off. Just because something's not made for me doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. Plenty of content I disagree with but I'm still glad it exists

 

[NovaKart]

Obviously there’s a difference between an individual choosing not to buy a product for whatever reason and organizing other people to do the same.

LOL like the Hays code was the end of the majority dictating what would go on screen.

When the white majority decide they don't like a movie, they don'T need to organize a boycott. It just tanks from sheer word of mouth and demographic weight. Majority disapproval has tanked far more series, movies, studios, shows and what have you than all the boycott in the world in the past several decades. They also convinced executives for decades that women superheroes films were untenable, and non-white superheroes likewise, by sheer economic weight, without having to organize a deliberate boycott of any sort.

The only difference between minorities and the majority here is that the later need to organize their boycott for their opinions of a show to have an economic impact. When the majority dislikes something, the economic impact is instantaneous.

Boycott bring the field a little closer to even between minorities and majority (and still a far cry from: majority preferences still have far much weight).

I do agree with you that many people mistake depiction for endorsement. That's an ongoing problem especially among the group I previously described. THAT said. Depiction in and of itself can be a problem when it's depiction of prejudicial stereotypes. And the best people to tell you what's a prejudicial stereotype you shouldn't propagate or disturb...are the people the stereotype is about.

I think this was likely the other way around, studio executives not take a chance on what they thought would appeal to the majority.

I think the Hayes Code was in fact imposed under threat of boycott from religious groups, not the majority and it seems like it was always out of step with popular norms. Unless couples really did keep one foot on the floor when they were on the bed.

 

[Evie]

Depiction of a prejudicial stereotype without condemnation or repudiation is inherently problematic because it is often all the presentstion of the stereotyped group people see, so it's how they perceive the reality of the group. Intent does matter to a degree, but that degree is the difference between accidentally shooting someone and deliberately shooting someone. Not the difference between them being shot or not shot.

Studios changing what gets made and not making what doesn't sell is inherent to capitalistic entertainment. Until you're ready to discuss a complete reform of our world approach art, majorities preferences *will* dictate what gets made, and minorities need organized, deliberate effort to make their voices heard also,

 

[Synobun]

I wonder if more meaningful consumer activism is positive consumption direction rather than boycotts. (Mostly +1'ing Evie here.) That said, I feel dirty talking like that. Consumption is too high. Idk.

I live in a performative city, so perhaps I'm the outlier and this isn't actually the reality for the majority, but don't modern consumers (Millennial, Gen Z) already do this?

 

[El_Machinae]

When I watch a film or show and I come to the conclusion that I disagree with it, or even find it's content offensive, I just stop watching.

If people shouldn't advertise against watching something, do you think the inverse that people shouldn't advertise to watch something?

Isn't telling people something is 'unworthy' just the inverse as declaring that it's 'okay' or even 'worthy'?

I wonder if more meaningful consumer activism is positive consumption direction rather than boycotts. (Mostly +1'ing Evie here.) That said, I feel dirty talking like that. Consumption is too high. Idk.

One would have to use words like 'pivot spending' or talk about how the effect of money can be double-counted when it's been pivoted for an effect

Edit:

This entire thing reminds me of a recent piece of 'woke activism' that happened in my white and affluent circles. Everybody congratulated each other for seeing Black Panther. Like it made us good people or something.

Except we saw all the Marvel movies.

There's no doubt that audience consumption of Black Panther was important. But golly, we were acting like we did something special and generous. The worst part is that viewing Black Panther creating Moral License for people. It was very frustrating.

Edit edit:
My recommendation is to watch Trigger Warning with Killer Mike on Netflix. It is very much about the value of positive consumption. Extra meta for actively consuming it.

 

[Evie]

Positive consumption definitely happens and is a natural counterpart to boycotts.

 

[Lexicus]

No. Like I said above, when I don't like what I'm watching, I have no desire to rally a boycott; I just turn it off. Just because something's not made for me doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. Plenty of content I disagree with but I'm still glad it exists

Other people are allowed to boycott things even if you don't like it. Don't know what else to tell you; you clearly do not like freedom of speech.

Film studios interfering and watering down a film to make it "more appealing" cause they think it'll be more profitable is bad, whether it's majority, minority, or whoever pushing for it

I find this somewhat ironic coming from someone who is presumably a fan of Civ 6, since my opinion is that it was "bad" that Fireaxis "watered down" the Civ series in 5 and 6.

But here's the thing, I don't present my taste in media as objective fact and claim it is a social problem (or "bad") when people make media products that appeal to different tastes than mine. I especially don't do this while pretending I'm heroically defending freedom of expression.

 

[Lexicus]

How did you infer this from anything I've written?

Because that is literally what you wrote. You wrote that a decision not to consume some media (which is what a boycott is, it is simply a collective decision not to consume something) constitutes an attempt to "control whether and how [media products are] distributed."

I just don't understand how this leads us anywhere other than the conclusion that, literally, being a discerning or discriminating consumer of media (rather than consuming literally every product available, or none) constitutes an attempt to "control whether and how media products are distributed."

 

[Traitorfish]

Because that is literally what you wrote. You wrote that a decision not to consume some media (which is what a boycott is, it is simply a collective decision not to consume something) constitutes an attempt to "control whether and how [media products are] distributed."

I said that an attempt to exercise control over the distribution and consumption of media remains an attempt to exercise control even when it is carried out through a framework of individual consumption choices.

I did not say that any exercise of individual consumption choices is, therefore, an attempt to exercise control over the distribution and consumption of media. That's self-evidently ludicrous, and attributing such an absurd position to me suggests that you're going out of your way to find the least charitable interpretation of other people's posts.

The problem of people's preference and dislikes dictating what can and cannot be made is inherent to capitalistic entertainment. Focusing on minorities who make effort to have their voice heard on top of the majority's as "the problem" betrays a lot about the underlying assumptions of the complainer.

What are "minorities" in the context of media consumption? Gay people? Evangelical Christians? Science fiction fans? There an implication, in the way you're framing this, that it is a question of equality, that the "minority" is in some way a disenfranchised group who have a reasonable moral claim to greater level of attention, but if the minority is constituted in opposition to the consumption preferences of the majority or plurality, that really isn't self-evident. A "minority" is simply any group whose consumption preferences differ from the majority, whether or not that preference corresponds to any particular sociological category, still less whether that category is identified as marginalised by left-wing commentators. (Which in turn leaves the "underlying assumptions of the complainer" less-betrayed than you seem to think.)

 

[Birdjaguar]

My not watching "Days of Our Lives" is not a boycott.

 

[João III]

Studios changing what gets made and not making what doesn't sell is inherent to capitalistic entertainment. Until you're ready to discuss a complete reform of our world approach art, majorities preferences *will* dictate what gets made, and minorities need organized, deliberate effort to make their voices heard also,

I said it was bad, capitalism (specifically the House of Mouse) is destroying cinema

If people shouldn't advertise against watching something, do you think the inverse that people shouldn't advertise to watch something?
Isn't telling people something is 'unworthy' just the inverse as declaring that it's 'okay' or even 'worthy'?

There's a difference between telling people you didn't like something and actively boycotting producers and demanding they stop funding production of the thing you didn't like

Other people are allowed to boycott things even if you don't like it. Don't know what else to tell you; you clearly do not like freedom of speech.

Ironic, cause I'm not the one advocating for boycotts to shut down artists I don't like

I find this somewhat ironic coming from someone who is presumably a fan of Civ 6, since my opinion is that it was "bad" that Fireaxis "watered down" the Civ series in 5 and 6.

I would hope the game they put out is the vision they had in mind. Artists evolve and that's fine. It's certainly not the same as RKO interfering in the production of The Magnificent Ambersons (1942)

But here's the thing, I don't present my taste in media as objective fact and claim it is a social problem (or "bad") when people make media products that appeal to different tastes than mine. I especially don't do this while pretending I'm heroically defending freedom of expression.

Not sure who you're talking about here. If you've read what I've written, you'd know I support the production of films that may appeal to people who aren't me. Especially the films I disagree with

 

[El_Machinae]

There's a difference between telling people you didn't like something and actively boycotting producers and demanding they stop funding production of the thing you didn't like

I find there's very little difference in not buying something because you don't like it and not buying but providing customer feedback as to why they failed to earn your business.

Oh, it's annoying and whinny and the process erupts a froth of noise. But until there are new legal powers created as a result of the agitation (which, I'll grant, can cause problems) 'demanding' someone stop producing something is hyperbole. It's a demand, in the five-year-old-stomping sense. But that's it. A producer has to earn your money and money is zero-sum.

I'll point out again that I think that sometimes there's a social benefit in letting a boycott go too far.

But they're trying to get money and thus prevent someone else from getting that same dollar. I'm trying to prevent them from getting money. It's two sides of the same process. If they're advertising then it's weird to suggest that my 'counter-advertising' is the problem. Boycotting is just negative advertising. When I say "don't subscribe to Disney+", I'm not saying "give up streaming". I'm saying "chose some other service".

"Goodwill" is a line item on the valuation of a company. It would be really weird to say that only they should be allowed to affect it and that it should only go 'up'.

we can conceive of it is entirely absent of coercion, and in doing so we can mask the attempt to create and exert power over others

Yes, good point. I would always describe it as an exercise of power. I might fail to notice when other people are implying that it's not. The difference to me is that one is a subsidy-to-continue and the other is interference in their basic freedoms. Excepting some basic floor, I should have to pay for your artistic expression. But excepting some basic ceiling, I have to let you express.

 

[Lexicus]

I said that an attempt to exercise control over the distribution and consumption of media remains an attempt to exercise control even when it is carried out through a framework of individual consumption choices.

I did not say that any exercise of individual consumption choices is, therefore, an attempt to exercise control over the distribution and consumption of media. That's self-evidently ludicrous, and attributing such an absurd position to me suggests that you're going out of your way to find the least charitable interpretation of other people's posts.

What is the empirical definition of "attempt[ing] to exercise control over the distribution and consumption of media"? If I post on Facebook about how the new Halo series on Paramount Plus is dumb and people shouldn't spend their money to subscribe to Paramount because it's not worth it, how is that not literally an attempt to exercise control over the distribution and consumption of media?

Ironic, cause I'm not the one advocating for boycotts to shut down artists I don't like

I'm not advocating for them, I'm simply noting that they are constituted by people exercising their rights of free speech and free association.

I would hope the game they put out is the vision they had in mind. Artists evolve and that's fine. It's certainly not the same as RKO interfering in the production of The Magnificent Ambersons (1942)

"The artistic vision should never change at any point during the execution" is...a really odd position to take, at least IMO. It's interesting, I had to look up this example and it appears to be garden-standard Executive Meddling because the studio believed that Welles' film wouldn't be commercially successful.

Not sure who you're talking about here. If you've read what I've written, you'd know I support the production of films that may appeal to people who aren't me. Especially the films I disagree with

No, you obviously do not, given your comment directly above about RKO's cut of The Magnificent Ambersons.

 

[Traitorfish]

What is the empirical definition of "attempt[ing] to exercise control over the distribution and consumption of media"? If I post on Facebook about how the new Halo series on Paramount Plus is dumb and people shouldn't spend their money to subscribe to Paramount because it's not worth it, how is that not literally an attempt to exercise control over the distribution and consumption of media?

What you're describing is an attempt to persuade, not control. I don't think the distinction is genuinely that obscure.

 

[Angst]

I live in a performative city, so perhaps I'm the outlier and this isn't actually the reality for the majority, but don't modern consumers (Millennial, Gen Z) already do this?

Oh they do. It's just with the thread discussion of whether boycotts on these grounds are moral, and me knowing that boycotts don't work to begin with (too small, or free advertising); I wonder if everyone would agree that positive consumption is good activism.

 

[Lexicus]

What you're describing is an attempt to persuade, not control. I don't think the distinction is genuinely that obscure.

So what would an attempt to control look like? The same Facebook post but with a different tone?

 

[Evie]

If I post "we should boycott X" that is also an attempt at persuasion. Persuading to boycott, or persuading to not see: either way the producer is out of money if I succeed.

 

[João III]

I find there's very little difference in not buying something because you don't like it and not buying but providing customer feedback as to why they failed to earn your business.

If providing feedback was the same as boycotting, it'd be called boycotting instead of providing feedback. But it's not the same

I'm not advocating for them, I'm simply noting that they are constituted by people exercising their rights of free speech and free association.

Utilizing boycotts to shut down the speech you don't like isn't exactly championing free speech

"The artistic vision should never change at any point during the execution" is...a really odd position to take, at least IMO. It's interesting, I had to look up this example and it appears to be garden-standard Executive Meddling because the studio believed that Welles' film wouldn't be commercially successful.

I wouldn't call it "standard meddling". They waited until Welles was out of the country so they could have someone else film entirely new scenes. If you watch the film, you can tell which scenes Welles didn't film. It's a shame, because even in its butchered state, it's still a masterpiece

No, you obviously do not, given your comment directly above about RKO's cut of The Magnificent Ambersons.

I love Ambersons and even own a copy, but a studio interfering is not the same as releasing a film with a message that may not appeal to me

 

[Traitorfish]

So what would an attempt to control look like? The same Facebook post but with a different tone?

I have entirely lost the thread of this scenario.

If I post "we should boycott X" that is also an attempt at persuasion. Persuading to boycott, or persuading to not see: either way the producer is out of money if I succeed.

Yes, "we should boycott X" is persuasion, actually boycotting it is an attempt to exercise control.

 

[El_Machinae]

If providing feedback was the same as boycotting, it'd be called boycotting instead of providing feedback. But it's not the same

I'm calling it 'negative advertising', the inverse of advertising. Or, 'leaving a review, hoping the company values the review'.

It's not just providing feedback, obviously, because you're also telling their customer base to reward their competitor in lieu.