"Wokeist" - When people talk about progressivism without acquaintance

[Zardnaar]

It seems that's not enough anymore. Nowadays if a show or movie's "offensive", then it needs to be cancelled or sponsors boycotted so no one else can watch it either. Doesn't help that media literacy is abysmal

Yup that's the wike stuff I don't agree with.
Unless that show us something like Hitler:He Rocks or Genocide For the Family so what?

So art is offensive hell some art needs to be offensive.

Not everyone in same nation is gonna have the same PoV and the law allows for it.

If some idiot wants to wave around the CSA flag let them hell it's legal anyway.

Lecturing them isn't gonna change the kind. If it goes beyond that eg fascists beating people up put their balls in a vice.

 

[El_Machinae]

There is a damn site difference between interfering with other people's ability to consume entertainment (or infotainment) and boycotting sponsors. This is especially true in any type of society that has a market economy when it comes to advertising or sponsorship.

I'm bothered by protestors who don't know anything about a speaker's thesis physically disrupting people's efforts to legally partake. But if someone boycotts a sponsor, then the communication is a two-way street. Do better appealing to people if you want their money. If Disney+ can bribe us into funding their ongoing consumption of Copyright Law with 'feel good' movies, then so can whoever else.

Sponsorship is a deliberate subsidy. It's not just some magic dust that sprinkles out of the air. And the boycott can even have a spread of efficacy. Some boycotts only matter insofar as they can put pressure on behaviour. But even denying an evil entity your dollars is valuable, because of the double-counting effect money has when weaponized.

 

[Zardnaar]

There is a damn site difference between interfering with other people's ability to consume entertainment (or infotainment) and boycotting sponsors. This is especially true in any type of society that has a market economy when it comes to advertising or sponsorship.

I'm bothered by protestors who don't know anything about a speaker's thesis physically disrupting people's efforts to legally partake. But if someone boycotts a sponsor, then the communication is a two-way street. Do better appealing to people if you want their money. If Disney+ can bribe us into funding their ongoing consumption of Copyright Law with 'feel good' movies, then so can whoever else.

Sponsorship is a deliberate subsidy. It's not just some magic dust that sprinkles out of the air. And the boycott can even have a spread of efficacy. Some boycotts only matter insofar as they can put pressure on behaviour. But even denying an evil entity your dollars is valuable, because of the double-counting effect money has when weaponized.

More than one can play that game though. How many "progressive" movies have tanked due to cancel culture going the other way?

You can just about spot the flops these days because you can't afford to alienate 40% of the US population at the box office.

 

[Traitorfish]

There is a damn site difference between interfering with other people's ability to consume entertainment (or infotainment) and boycotting sponsors.

If the practical outcome of boycotting sponsors is interfering with other people's ability to consume entertainment, then aren't we just haggling between the direct and scenic route?

More than one can play that game though. How many "progressive" movies have tanked due to cancel culture going the other way?

Probably not many, to be honest. The meme "get woke, go broke" tends to assume that the "get woke" part proceeds from sincere conviction (or, at least, sincere pandering), but in practice it's usually an attempt to generate enthusiasm for an existing lacklustre product.

 

[El_Machinae]

If one is only measuring outcome but the process matters. They're fundamentally different processes. One is literally assisting in the subsidy of the production thereof. The other is respecting people's ability to operate in a free society.

The additional benefit is that one is under less onus to 'be objectively correct' when exercising that choice. I should never have to convince you why I should have freedom from assault, because your obstinance isn't my problem but also the driving variable of that equation. If I want your money, it's okay if I do have to convince you.

More than one can play that game though. How many "progressive" movies have tanked due to cancel culture going the other way?

Oh, it's a 'fair game' and the winning goes to those with the most power AND ability to sway. But it's nothing but Tit-for-Tat Prisoner's Dilemma. And, I can assure you, their boycotters are more motivated that our boycotters. And that's sometimes not because they're strong but because we are weak.

 

[Zardnaar]

Oh, it's a 'fair game' and the winning goes to those with the most power AND ability to sway. But it's nothing but Tit-for-Tat Prisoner's Dilemma. And, I can assure you, their boycotters are more motivated that our boycotters. And that's sometimes not because they're strong but because we are weak.

It's just ridiculess at this point. Just inflames passions and leads to an ever increasing escalation and weaponizes buzzwords etc.

In some cases eg comedians you expect them to be offensive woke comedy is goddam awful.

Well so is the other dribbling crap from the other side eg Fox but you don't really need to point that out imho it's kind of obvious.

 

[Traitorfish]

If one is only measuring outcome but the process matters. They're fundamentally different processes. One is literally assisting in the subsidy of the production thereof. The other is respecting people's ability to operate in a free society.

What is the fundamental different in process? If somebody boycotts a product in order to encourage the manufacturers of that product to withdraw sponsorship for an entertainment property they disagree with, we assume that it is because they expect this will contribute to the distribution of the entertainment property being restricted or terminated, or for the property to be changed in such a way as to become acceptable to them. The mechanism used to exercise control is market exchange rather than government power, but the control which is exercised doesn't seem fundamentally different. We're still watching one group of people attempt to exert control over whether and how entertainment is distributed.

edit: I'm worried the above might seem obtuse, so I'll add that my concern here is that when we talk about boycotts, we're allowing the market to provide a sort of moral laundering. Because our point of contact in a boycott is in the sphere of free individual choice within a competitive market, because we can say "well, I'm allowed not to buy this", 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. Market exchange as a sort of anonymising effect insofar as the act of exchange as an exchange occurs between two abstracted market actors rather than between flesh-and-blood human beings, which allows us to create an air-gap, so to speak, between our actions and our intentions, which I think allows us to evade some level of responsibility for those actions.

 

[João III]

If Disney+ can bribe us into funding their ongoing consumption of Copyright Law with 'feel good' movies, then so can whoever else.

We should encourage artists to take risks instead of settling for Disney's formulaic movies and shows just because they're safe and not likely to offend. Disney is destroying cinema but at least their content isn't "problematic"!

 

[Evie]

At least here, a boycott, like a strike or a protest, would be considered a form of freedom of expression (what we call freedom of speech) just as much as a political speech. It's a legitimate way to express an opinion.

And it should be.

Doesn't mean I agree with every single boycott. But I don't have to agree with them to recognize they are a legitimate part of discussion.

(And I'm more inclined to support boycott than members of the majority complaining about not being allowed to offend minorities anymore. There's a very strong sense that certain social group are upset they're not allowed to single-handedly set all the rules of what's appropriate or not for themselves *and* everyone else anymore)

 

[Synobun]

IS GEORGE SOROS PAYING THE WOKE LEFT TO CRIPPLE GOOD FAMILY BUSINESSES LIKE CHIK-FIL-A AND TRUTH SOCIAL? My column:

 

[Lexicus]

What is the fundamental different in process? If somebody boycotts a product in order to encourage the manufacturers of that product to withdraw sponsorship for an entertainment property they disagree with, we assume that it is because they expect this will contribute to the distribution of the entertainment property being restricted or terminated, or for the property to be changed in such a way as to become acceptable to them. The mechanism used to exercise control is market exchange rather than government power, but the control which is exercised doesn't seem fundamentally different. We're still watching one group of people attempt to exert control over whether and how entertainment is distributed.

So, me not consuming, say, the Disney+ streaming service because nothing there appeals to me means that I am engaged in an attempt to deny this service to others by trying to make it unprofitable? Is that really where we are right now?

No one has the right to an audience. Conflating a right to an audience with the right to speak is fundamentally dishonest.

 

[Evie]

This indeed.

No commercial enterprise is entitled to the business of its consumers. If those consumers are unhappy with what the business offer and elect to take their money elsewhere, that is the most fundamental tenets of free market economics at work.

Likewise, no consumer is entitled to the business they like being kept afloat by people being made to spend money there when they would rather not.

You lose your favorite channel because other people boycotted it? Well, maybe artistic creativity shouldn't be about revenues. But so long as we link creative work with capitalistic pursuits, you running the risk of losing the shows you like to a boycott is a quintessential part of it.

If you'd like to talk about the possibility of a new vision of art in our society operating outside capitalistic ideals, I'm all ears...

 

[João III]

At least here, a boycott, like a strike or a protest, would be considered a form of freedom of expression (what we call freedom of speech) just as much as a political speech. It's a legitimate way to express an opinion.

And it should be.

Doesn't mean I agree with every single boycott. But I don't have to agree with them to recognize they are a legitimate part of discussion.

The boycotting itself isn't the problem. The problem is boycotting anything and everything that could be considered outside the narrow view of what's "acceptable"

(And I'm more inclined to support boycott than members of the majority complaining about not being allowed to offend minorities anymore.

Part of the problem here is that too many people think "depiction=endorsement" and therefore depiction of anything that could be considered remotely controversial is now "problematic"

There's a very strong sense that certain social group are upset they're not allowed to single-handedly set all the rules of what's appropriate or not for themselves *and* everyone else anymore)

Yes, what we need is a different social group to set all the rules for themselves *and* everyone else. Bring back the Hays Code

 

[El_Machinae]

The boycotting itself isn't the problem. The problem is boycotting anything and everything that could be considered outside the narrow view of what's "acceptable"

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.

Hell, huge swaths of institutional racism was done through the boycott. "I won't hire blacks" is similar to a boycott and eventually required legislation to address, and the legislation was required because moral suasion to end the boycott was insufficient. But just because it ends badly doesn't mean that people can stop doing it.

If some information is deemed to be socially necessary and is insufficiently provided by voluntary funding, the backstop is government funding. We use it all the time.

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.

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.

 

[Evie]

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.

 

[Lexicus]

The boycotting itself isn't the problem. The problem is boycotting anything and everything that could be considered outside the narrow view of what's "acceptable"

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?

If you are arguing for the right to expression through art, you cannot simultaneously argue that people cannot express themselves through their consumption decisions without being a giant hypocrite.

I think it's perfectly possible to argue that people's opinions on any given media are poorly-conceived, and I even agree with you that people often confuse "depiction" with "endorsement." But if you disagree with someone about that, just say so.

Pretending that any given decision to consume or not consume a piece of media is somehow "illegitimate" or a violation of other people's rights just makes you look ridiculous and hypocritical.

 

[Traitorfish]

So, me not consuming, say, the Disney+ streaming service because nothing there appeals to me means that I am engaged in an attempt to deny this service to others by trying to make it unprofitable? Is that really where we are right now?

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

At least here, a boycott, like a strike or a protest, would be considered a form of freedom of expression (what we call freedom of speech) just as much as a political speech. It's a legitimate way to express an opinion.

Of course, I am not saying that I am opposed to boycotts as a matter of principle, I'm very much not. What I ask is that people are honest about what they hope to achieve, that they not disingenuously present attempts to exercise control over others are mere private consumption choices.

(So much of the convoluted rhetoric of the modern centre-left stems from a refusal to break with the forms of classical bourgeois liberalism even while breaking sharply with the practice. People want to carry out censorship, but they don't want to call it "censorship" because that's a bad word, so instead of making an argument for why censorship is necessary, they simply make an argument that it isn't really censorship.)

 

[Angst]

I'm kind of too fuzzy to properly participate in the current discussion, but I have two short points.

Choosing not to buy a product and having word of mouth circulate around a product you consider bad is supposed to be a healthy part of capitalism. Now, this has its issues, and I know that some of the posters here (particularly Traitorfish) aren't, to put it bluntly, the most avid supporters of capitalism. But there's that.

Also, regardless of your view on whether boycotts should be done on moral grounds... Boycotts rarely work. If it's a private, personal boycott, it won't change the bottom line much. If it's a pushed public boycott, it rarely does any change except free advertisement.

 

[Evie]

A trivial distinction when the majority already directly determines what get made or not made via their consumption choice without any effort or deliberation.

Minorities need to make their consumption decision in a concerted, deliberate manner to even remotely approach the power and influence of the everyday consumption choices of the majority. And even then, it works far less frequently than simple majority dislike.

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.

 

[Angst]

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.