"Wokeist" - When people talk about progressivism without acquaintance

[Evie]

"Sounds like the alternate fact version of smear campaign" implies the term is just an euphemism for "smear campaign". At least to me it would.

And you're kind of doing the same thing all over again with Gorbles on "coordinated campaigns of negative reviews", assuming the reviews Gorbles want are false or misleading and therefore (by your definition) review bombing.

Maybe not constantly assuming the strategies people propose are based on deception would help, if you're not trying to accuse everyone of wrongdoing,

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't mean to attribute these motives to you, I'm sorry for that. I think you are getting taken in by right-wing memes that are motivated by what I described.

And I'll note for the record I am mostly not in favor of what's usually called "cancel culture." I do not like bourgeois liberals either. I just think the arguments you're making are bad arguments, not only on the merits but also because the fact that you're making them shows the success that the right has had in poisoning the discourse.

You're only assuming that I'm "getting taken in by right-wing memes" because the context I'm making these arguments is in a discussion about left-wing media boycotts.

Have you considered that this is simply because I am responding to the sort of things which get discussed here, and the sort of people discussing them? That I'm not expressing the same apprehension about right-wing boycotts because nobody here is discussing them, or advocating for them?

There's an underlying assumption to a lot of these discussion that we're all in the trenches fighting the culture war, that every word we say is either advancing Our Team or pushing back Their Team. There's no patience for discussing things for the own sake, thus, no capacity for self-criticism.

 

[João III]

"Sounds like the alternate fact version of smear campaign" implies the term is just an euphemism for "smear campaign". At least to me it would.

Sounds like you chose to interpret it that way

And you're kind of doing the same thing all over again with Gorbles on "coordinated campaigns of negative reviews", assuming the reviews Gorbles want are false or misleading and therefore (by your definition) review bombing.

Let's check in with Wikipedia:

A review bomb is an Internet phenomenon where a large number of people—or in rarer cases, a few people with multiple accounts—leave negative user reviews online.

Maybe not constantly assuming the strategies people propose are based on deception would help, if you're not trying to accuse everyone of wrongdoing,

Deception?

 

[Gorbles]

You're only assuming that I'm "getting taken in by right-wing memes" because the context I'm making these arguments is in a discussion about left-wing media boycotts.

If your arguments have any such overlap with any right-wing memes that people even remotely confuse the two, I'd personally take that as a reason to stop for a moment and to reflect why.

If you don't think that people can read arguments deeper than "he's criticising left wing stuff", or you're just outright assuming bad faith, then that's as uncharitable to them.

In fairness "confidently predicting" can be its own danger. This is separate from "use to predict", which is just noting a correlation.

True. I'm typing on mobile, so the wall of text suffers a bit. The range of topics is contextual to the original post made.

There is always the risk of the mob being wrong. It often is and the damage that a mob of dangerously confident people can do is obvious.

It sure is. The extra funny bit is due to how games are relatively conservative on the whole. It's like the movie thing, only profit margins are tighter. So the backlash when culturally-progressive things are included is conservative (at best) by default. The amount of high-profile cases because a leading fictional character is a woman, for example, are far, far more numerous than review bombing campaigns of something like Die Hard: Manly Man Edition (also fictional in this case, sorry folks).

I guess you could say reviews can be a part of a boycott but I wouldn't consider review bombing the same as boycotting. Otherwise it'd be called boycotting and not review bombing

It's not the same, but it's a good example of something you're trying to separate from the tangent about boycotts can also be used in "bad" ways. They're still used to coerce.

So why bother trying to insist one isn't the other in the first place? It seems like a pointless hair to split. Everyone knows the words are different. We're discussing how they're being used, right?

I've never said boycotts are bad. It's about the intent behind them, regarding film and television in this case.

How do you determine this intent, then? It sure seems like any technique you could employ would fall foul of your own arguments of my CFC predictions I was talking about.

You would have predicted I'd agree with the OP?

If you've agreed that the label of "woke" demonstrates a lack of knowledge about the general talking points of left-of-centre politics, then I have indeed sorely misread you

The problem is the difference between knowing and thinking you know

It's a problem, when it's a problem. It's not "the" problem. The problem is being able to correlate these positions so generally in the first place.

 

[Evie]

You made two fairly different claims about what constitutes review bombing in the space of a few minutes here. In one case, you excluded people spurring each other to give truthful accurate (negative, in this case) reviews, and in the other, you said all organized effort to give negative review.

I tend to think the second definition is correct, in which case review bombing is not inherently reprehensible. If it's just people who have a problem with the product encouraging one another and coordinating their effort to leave a review accurately stating what they perceive the problem to be, there is nothing wrong with that. And, from there, nothing wrong with what Gorbles proposed.

But you originally dismissed that part of review bombing to say the only examples that fit were number-only reviews, reviews with false information, or reviews by bots. In which case, review bombing would be inherently reprehensible, but not an accurate portrayal of what Gorbles proposed.

 

[João III]

So why bother trying to insist one isn't the other in the first place? It seems like a pointless hair to split. Everyone knows the words are different. We're discussing how they're being used, right?

If we know they're different, why bother bringing them up in a discussion on boycotting in the first place? I didn't

How do you determine this intent, then? It sure seems like any technique you could employ would fall foul of your own arguments of my CFC predictions I was talking about.

Not to sound cheeky, but don't people normally explain why they're calling for a boycott when they call for a boycott? Here's a quick example. Some activists called for Licorice Pizza (2021) to be shut out from awards because it depicted "casual racism". However, if someone were to actually approach the film beyond a surface-level reading, they'd realize it's not endorsing racism at all.

I mean there are people that take Starship Troopers (1997) as a full-on endorsement of fascism

If you've agreed that the label of "woke" demonstrates a lack of knowledge about the general talking points of left-of-centre politics, then I have indeed sorely misread you

Indeed

 

[Evie]

I haven't seen that particular movie, so cannot comment on the specific with regard to it, in particular. It may well be that had I seen it it wouldn't have bothered me at all.

But a lot of people - of all political stripes and colors - will do a surface level reading absent very clear indication that that reading is wrong. As much the ones who will find that the surface-level reading of the film bother them because of racism as the ones who will find that a surface-level reading of the film comforts and validates their racism. As a result, the surface level reading does matter, because it generates tangible results. .

Again, we're looking at intent vs results. Yes, presumably, the surface level does not reflect the intent, but the results are there nonetheless. And once again, I must restate that intent is the difference between deliberately shooting someone and accidentally shooting them. Result is the difference between them being shot and not being shot.

 

[Gorbles]

If we know they're different, why bother bringing them up in a discussion on boycotting in the first place? I didn't

You're the one who attempted to quantify the two as being separate; I replied to you. But I think you actually did bring up boycotting in the first place - see the end of this post.

Not to sound cheeky, but don't people normally explain why they're calling for a boycott when they call for a boycott? Here's a quick example. Some activists called for Licorice Pizza (2021) to be shut out from awards because it depicted "casual racism". However, if someone were to actually approach the film beyond a surface-level reading, they'd realize it's not endorsing racism at all.

If it helps, "depicting casual racism" is not "endorsing racism". As you said you were being cheeky

Cherrypicked examples would keep us here all night. Regardless, my guess is that there's a greater point behind the depiction of such casual racism that a) would either validate the activists' concerns or b) demonstrate that their concerns are unfounded.

Reading the article (editing this post as I go), I am aware that anti-Asian discrimination is a real thing, and yes, the setting of the 70s is absolutely something that factors into social dynamics presented, but at the same time the offensive remarks were chosen to be included. It doesn't seem (to me) like they really advanced the plot in any meaningful way except to go "hey look, we're being inclusive with racism". And heck, the article even says that as well (by quotation).

Indeed

I'm confused, because you haven't really engaged with much of Angst's comments throughout, and indeed your first post wasn't until page 8, where you talked about (and in fact, raised) the apparently-modern (spoiler: it isn't) phenomenon of "cancelling" and "boycotting". You then liked Zard's post the one after where he says "that's the woke stuff I don't agree with". Now nobody here can understand how likes are applied (and I stand by this, because it's a binary system that expresses a range of generally-positive emotions), but when combined that doesn't read to me like you agree with Angst's deconstruction of "woke" and the people who use it.

 

[João III]

If it's just people who have a problem with the product encouraging one another and coordinating their effort to leave a review accurately stating what they perceive the problem to be, there is nothing wrong with that.

Please share an example of review bombing that isn't just a bunch of people and/or bots attacking a film, video game, etc. with extremely negative reviews and little to no details

I haven't seen that particular movie, so cannot comment on the specific with regard to it, in particular. It may well be that had I seen it it wouldn't have bothered me at all.

It's a good film

But a lot of people - of all political stripes and colors - will do a surface level reading absent very clear indication that that reading is wrong.

It's a film made for adults. Adults should be able to watch a film without someone turning to the camera and saying "racism is bad". Do we need someone to look into the camera and go "killing is bad" during The Godfather??

As much the ones who will find that the surface-level reading of the film bother them because of racism as the ones who will find that a surface-level reading of the film comforts and validates their racism. As a result, the surface level reading does matter, because it generates tangible results.

So we shouldn't depict racism on film because the racists might like it?

Cherrypicked examples would keep us here all night. Regardless, my guess is that there's a greater point behind the depiction of such casual racism that a) would either validate the activists' concerns or b) demonstrate that their concerns are unfounded.

Reading the article (editing this post as I go), I am aware that anti-Asian discrimination is a real thing, and yes, the setting of the 70s is absolutely something that factors into social dynamics presented, but at the same time the offensive remarks were chosen to be included. It doesn't seem (to me) like they really advanced the plot in any meaningful way except to go "hey look, we're being inclusive with racism". And heck, the article even says that as well (by quotation).

Have you actually seen the film yourself?

I'm confused, because you haven't really engaged with much of Angst's comments throughout, and indeed your first post wasn't until page 8, where you talked about (and in fact, raised) the apparently-modern (spoiler: it isn't) phenomenon of "cancelling" and "boycotting". You then liked Zard's post the one after where he says "that's the woke stuff I don't agree with". Now nobody here can understand how likes are applied (and I stand by this, because it's a binary system that expresses a range of generally-positive emotions), but when combined that doesn't read to me like you agree with Angst's deconstruction of "woke" and the people who use it.

That was not my first post in this thread. Check page 3

 

[Gorbles]

So we shouldn't depict racism on film because the racists might like it?

I know you're replying to Evie here, but this seems like a really silly misinterpretation of the example you yourself provided.

Have you actually seen the film yourself?

Would it change anything about my arguments if I had? What does it matter? Have you talked to every single leftist ever involved in organising a boycott? No? Then why opine about it?

That was not my first post in this thread. Check page 3

Ahh, thanks. I figured I'd missed something, and I had. My bad.

Seems like a rather specific and narrow agreement of some of Angst's points, but sure, far more charitable than my reading of it above. Certainly, you do seem to buy into the whole thing of "wokeism" which is what I believe Angst was specifically trying to deconstruct, but hey.

Edited a tad for tone. Don't want to come across harshly, it's late.

 

[El_Machinae]

If your arguments have any such overlap with any right-wing memes that people even remotely confuse the two, I'd personally take that as a reason to stop for a moment and to reflect why.

There will be two possible reasons: (1) someone has become inappropriately infected with a right-wing meme or (2) someone else might be unable to unpack whatever core truth the rightwing meme is built off of and only sees the 'right-wing'.

Given the bias on the thread, as well as the Left's well-known cannibalism, then the 'reflection' is multi-faceted. This will be especially true if the accuser has a history of Type 1 errors on the subject (or evidence that they don't mind making them for deeper motives).

 

[João III]

I know you're replying to Evie here, but this seems like a really silly misinterpretation of the example you yourself provided.

How so?

Would it change anything about my arguments if I had? What does it matter? Have you talked to every single leftist ever involved in organising a boycott? No? Then why opine about it?

If you haven't seen the film and only read the article, then why opine about it? That seems pertinent to the thread: people forming opinions on literature (or film as it were) and critiquing it despite not being acquainted with it. Watch the film and form an opinion yourself, don't rely on an article

Seems like a rather specific and narrow agreement of some of Angst's points, but sure, far more charitable than my reading of it above. Certainly, you do seem to buy into the whole thing of "wokeism" which is what I believe Angst was specifically trying to deconstruct, but hey.

If supporting artistic freedom in cinema puts me into that camp, fine

 

[Evie]

It's a film made for adults. Adults should be able to watch a film without someone turning to the camera and saying "racism is bad".

Being an adult is no proof that you are inclined to read beneath the surface level. If you're assuming that about people, you're wrong.

Do you need to turn to the camera and say it? No. But can you just present the thing without any commentary or consequence?

The Godfather's a pretty good example here: sure, there's a lot of killing. And the main character's life is clearly, unquestionably ruined for it. That's not beneath the surface: that's the very plot itself. His father was badly wounded and is now dead. His brother is dead, his sister hate his guts, one of the two women he loved is dead, the other probably hates him. And each of those hurt. They were not stoic James-Bond-loses-the-disposable-girl-of-the-episode moments. They were things that were built up only to be ripped from him because of the cycle of killing. The tragedy of it is the whole story of the film.

If racism is equally clearly depicted as something bad - as something that ruins lives - in the film you're talking about, I'd tend to agree with you that people were overreacting. That's not the sense I got from your comments, but again, I have not seen the film, and was more offering general commentary that we need to be careful with the idea of "only a surface reading" - because most people won't go much further than that.

 

[João III]

But can you just present the thing without any commentary or consequence?

Yes, you absolutely can. Requiring every film to spell everything out is insulting to the viewer's intelligence

If racism is equally clearly depicted as something bad - as something that ruins lives - in the film you're talking about, I'd tend to agree with you that people were overreacting.

Ensuring the bad guy is always punished was an important aspect of the Hays Code, thank you for helping prove my earlier point about bringing it back

we need to be careful with the idea of "only a surface reading" - because most people won't go much further than that.

Filmmakers (and artists on general) are under no obligation to condemn (or condone) the behavior they're depicting

 

[Evie]

I cited the Godfather as a good example of portraying killing. That film does not get made under the Hays Code.

Then I said racism should be portrayed as something that ruin lives. Note that I did not say "ruin the lives of racists". I did not say "punish the bad guys". I said ruin lives, and I'm far more concerned with the lives of the victims than that of the racists. If you depict racism, depict the reality of it, not the background flavor version. Showing racism without its impact is sanitized nonsense; if you don't have time to do both you're better off doing neither.

Nothing of that is even remotely the Hays code. The credibility of that interpretation is dangerously thin.

At the end of the day, depicting actions without depicting their consequences is either cheap background color or even cheaper power fantasy of actions without consequences. Either way, quality art this ain't.

And artists might be free to create what they will, but the audience is free to express their negative views of that art - including by boycott. Free expression is *always* at least a two way street, and often enough it's a five-way intersection.

 

[Lexicus]

You're only assuming that I'm "getting taken in by right-wing memes" because the context I'm making these arguments is in a discussion about left-wing media boycotts.

Have you considered that this is simply because I am responding to the sort of things which get discussed here, and the sort of people discussing them? That I'm not expressing the same apprehension about right-wing boycotts because nobody here is discussing them, or advocating for them?

There's an underlying assumption to a lot of these discussion that we're all in the trenches fighting the culture war, that every word we say is either advancing Our Team or pushing back Their Team. There's no patience for discussing things for the own sake, thus, no capacity for self-criticism.

I'm simply saying I don't find the arguments you've used in this thread persuasive. If you don't agree that a cultural product deserves to be boycotted, that's fine, people can disagree on those matters. All I'm saying is that I disagree with efforts to frame these kinds of things (call-outs, boycotts, whatever it is) as somehow outside the bounds of legitimate discourse.

Remember, I am a frequent critic of "my side" of the culture war and I get accused of "helping the right" when I voice those criticisms. I am not suggesting you "only ever criticizing the left and never the right" or anything similar. Honestly, I'm not even saying you're "helping the right" here at all - I'm just saying I don't think the arguments you're using are very good, because they heavily rely on treating right-wing bogeymen as though they are real things. I said your use of right-wing memes in your arguments reflects right-wing success in shaping this discourse, not that it contributes to or creates that success.

I guess let me put it this way. You may recall a few years back (was it a few years back? time in the pandemic is weird) that young adult novel Blood Heir, that the author decided not to publish after receiving a massive storm of criticism on Young Adult Twitter. I happen to think most of that criticism was stupid, that that episode was characterized by people engaging in ridiculous bullying tactics, and that a lot of the people who jumped on the bandwagon of "cancelling" that novel were pathetic nerds who need to acquire some maturity and circumspection.

What I don't think is that the people involved in that were engaged in some kind of illegitimate attempt to CoNtRoL CuLtUrAl ExPrEsSiOn, they were just people expressing their dumb opinions online. Does that make sense?

Another point here: I don't know whether you're familiar with Adolph Reed, but I basically agree with him on most culture war issues.
Take this piece, which I think is an absolutely fantastic example of cultural criticism. Notice that Reed does not slip into the use of right-wing tropes (another word for memes in this context). He notes specific criticisms made against specific works and then refutes them.

The point I'm making is not that you are "helping the right" in the cultural trench war by using right-wing memes. The problem with using right-wing tropes in your analysis is that the tropes are analytically garbage; that they don't assist with analyzing anything; they rather take the place of analysis and lead us to absurd places like the one you reached earlier in this thread.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Ooh, this is a fun one. "Centre" is someone who thinks both sides are equally bad regardless of the context, and thinks the only way is absolute compromise between any two points, regardless of whether or not the midpoint still involves harm or not.

Do I get a cookie?

I would call it moral cowardice, but your answer is better.

Now I would give you the cookie, but I can only give half of it to you, because it's partially flawed on one side and thus the whole thing is bad. Better toss it to be safe.

In all seriousness, I thought "woke" was a pretty silly term, and admit I can't really see people unironically declaring themselves woke. But I also don't use Twitter to get offended and am behind the times so....

 

[NovaKart]

I cited the Godfather as a good example of portraying killing. That film does not get made under the Hays Code.

Then I said racism should be portrayed as something that ruin lives. Note that I did not say "ruin the lives of racists". I did not say "punish the bad guys". I said ruin lives, and I'm far more concerned with the lives of the victims than that of the racists. If you depict racism, depict the reality of it, not the background flavor version. Showing racism without its impact is sanitized nonsense; if you don't have time to do both you're better off doing neither.

Nothing of that is even remotely the Hays code. The credibility of that interpretation is dangerously thin.

At the end of the day, depicting actions without depicting their consequences is either cheap background color or even cheaper power fantasy of actions without consequences. Either way, quality art this ain't.

And artists might be free to create what they will, but the audience is free to express their negative views of that art - including by boycott. Free expression is *always* at least a two way street, and often enough it's a five-way intersection.

Do you really think that’s the reality of racism for everyone affected by it?

 

[João III]

Then I said racism should be portrayed as something that ruin lives. Note that I did not say "ruin the lives of racists". I did not say "punish the bad guys". I said ruin lives, and I'm far more concerned with the lives of the victims than that of the racists. If you depict racism, depict the reality of it, not the background flavor version. Showing racism without its impact is sanitized nonsense; if you don't have time to do both you're better off doing neither.

Nothing of that is even remotely the Hays code. The credibility of that interpretation is dangerously thin.

I don't mean you want to literally bring back the Hays Code; I mean you want a new, revised code. You're literally outlining a moral rule you believe films should follow. Here's an excerpt from the Hays Code (emphasis mine):

1. No picture shall be produced that will lower the moral standards of those who see it. Hence the sympathy of the audience should never be thrown to the side of crime, wrongdoing, evil or sin.

2. Correct standards of life, subject only to the requirements of drama and entertainment, shall be presented.

3. Law, natural or human, shall not be ridiculed, nor shall sympathy be created for its violation.

The Evie Code (WIP):

1. Racism should be portrayed as something that ruins lives. If you depict racism, depict the reality of it. Showing racism without its impact is sanitized nonsense.

At the end of the day, depicting actions without depicting their consequences is either cheap background color or even cheaper power fantasy of actions without consequences.

You want to talk about depicting reality? Actions don't always have consequences in the real world. Check out La Piscine (1969) sometime. It's about a guy who kills his friend so he can have a relationship with his friend's daughter.

Spoiler :

Not only does he get away with it, he still ends up with the daughter

Or maybe you'd like Chinatown (1974), starring Jack Nicholson and Faye Dunaway. It's a Best Picture winner famous for its happy ending where we can really see the negative consequences of the antagonist's actions. Or there's also No Country for Old Men (2007), that's a film (another Best Picture winner) where the antagonist is evil incarnate, so you know the film's morals are very black and white.

Those are just a few cheap, critically panned films though, none with any real artistic merit

Either way, quality art this ain't.

Thank you for setting the objective standards for "quality art"

And artists might be free to create what they will, but the audience is free to express their negative views of that art - including by boycott. Free expression is *always* at least a two way street, and often enough it's a five-way intersection.

Nothing says "I support artistic expression" like the threat of boycott if you don't like it.

Often a good film will portray a character you consider to be in the wrong and, as a viewer, it's up to you to apply that to your own moral guidance. Part of the point of film is to expose yourself to different perspectives, right and wrong

 

[Evie]

Tell me, what makes you think it doesn't count if a consequence doesn't hurt who took the original action?

Especially, at that, after I specifically pointed out that consequences on the victims are what I'm interested in when it comes to racism. Hardly a defensible interpretation of my words, to reduce them to consequences on the perpetrator. And yet, there you are, as if you couldn't conceive another kind of consequence. Interesting.

But, no. All actions have consequences. The vilain may not be the one suffering from his actions in Chinatown, but his actions most certainly create suffering: consequences. The suffering so created and the powerlesness of the characters to respond to it are...kind of the point really. Without consequences, there is no Chinatown.