MovieChat Forums > Doctor Who (2006) Discussion > Stop using woke as a slogan

Stop using woke as a slogan

posted 3 years ago by peter_t_2k3 (959)
114 replies | jump to latest

So there's lots of people on here using then word woke as a slogan. What I mean by this is they just use the word without any meaning, evidence etc. I feel the word has been thrown around so much that people don't even know the meaning and I've heard different meanings from different people.

The problem that I've tried to explain is that when people just keep posting the same thing, the shows woke, nurse who etc. people reading just switch off. People claim they aren't trolls but its just words with nothing to back it up.

All I'm going to say is if you dislike the show to the point you don't watch anymore why bother posting on a message board, posting the same stuff. If your going to post stuff at least try to explain your reasonings. People might still not agree more but they'll respect that at least your not trolling.

I don't expect this post will do anything just sick of the same crap. And before anyone says I'm just defending the show, I'd personally say Chibnall is my least favourite show runner and I think the timeless child basically craps over nearly 60 years of history

reply
formatting help
[–] asom (6515) 3 years ago

Nope, it's not just a slogan, it is meant to describe a certain ideology.

woke: “the act of being very pretentious about how much you care about a social issue" - that includes exaggerating facts, swinging the pendulum to the other side (some have been too long oppressed, now is the time for the others to be oppressed), using "equality" to justify inequality, using "justice" to justify injustice, etc.

reply
formatting help
[–] peter_t_2k3 (959) 3 years ago

As I've posted though it has become a slogan because people shout it out without any meaning.

Doctor who has always had social issues. The ones kicking off now can't seem to explain how it's woke now and it wasn't woke previously.

I've seen people say it's because the white man is vilified but can't seem to point examples. Having one white villain does not equate to this. And that is the problem, you can't now have someone who isn't white and male as a lead without people shouting woke often without even seeing it. The new bond film had people claiming it was woke due to a black female agent being in the trailer without seeing the film.

reply
formatting help
[–] asom (6515) 3 years ago

When the producers of the movie give information about the role of said black female and they acknowledge the replacement of 007 ... the critics are justified - even if they haven't see the movie.

Another example of wokeness: to complain that Gal Gadot received the role of Cleopatra and arguing that the role should be assigned to a black or Arabian actress.

reply
formatting help
[–] peter_t_2k3 (959) 3 years ago

A lot where just judging it based of the trailer.

Doctor who wise people based Bill from her trailer claimi g she was going to be terrible. Yet she actually seemed quite popular and after Donna I'd say one of the better companions.

But as I've also mentioned people use this word about doctor who since Chibnall took over but can never seem to fully explain it.

reply
formatting help
[–] asom (6515) 3 years ago

Well Doctor who, yeah, it was woke before as well, true. And she IS terrible, as a personal opinion.

As example of the wokeness: traditionally the doctor had ONE companion, now she needs three to check all the boxes: black, minority, etc.

For the record, i loved the other black female companion of the doctor (Martha Jones) ... as a matter of fact the present minority representative female companion is the better of the 3 (again, in my opinion).

reply
formatting help
[–] peter_t_2k3 (959) 3 years ago

I feel Yaz is actually too underused. She's a police officer which is interesting but its never properly used. I feel in series 12 they tried to develop her more but it was a little too late. Ryan was a lot better in series 11 and I feel its Graham who often holds them together which is why I don't get people saying the show hates white males

reply
formatting help
[–] unsanesarah (249) 3 years ago

I saw it as it happened and Bill was every bit as awful as expected. There was no character, just the personification of this malevolent agenda stuff. The whole "history is a whitewash" doublespeak while backwashing history is what people mean. This simultaneous in-your-face gaslighting that dares you to contradict it. There is a huge difference between trying to right wrongs and trying to just punish back. Asom described it correctly. "Woke" is a term for something that seeks revenge, eye for an eye, justice through repaid injustice. "Woke" and sincerely trying to bring about mutual respect are two opposite notions. And with Who right now, one of the "woke" tactics of stealing a thing is in full effect. No one making Who seems to really care about it or the spirit of it. It's just this mean spirited notion of antagonising and running off a fanbase to turn it into a mouthpiece for pet causes. If anything, it's just as insulting to women, for example, because it says that an original character and concept based on a woman cannot succeed and therefore the only viable vehicle for it is to steal something else. I am a woman and i loved Who and The Doctor was always a man. I'd feel the same if they Red Sonja into a guy. It's cheap and it's cheating and it's devoid of any sense of creativity. Theft is the last bastion of those who lack creativity.

reply
formatting help
[–] peter_t_2k3 (959) 3 years ago

I can't remember anything political with Bill. No character? I felt she was far more than a character than let's say Clara who actually started as a plot device.

reply
formatting help
[–] unsanesarah (249) 3 years ago

Bill's "character" was pointing out that she is a lesbian all the time. Or in the case of a particular episode that she was black. What else was there to her? Explain her character without using "lesbian", "black", or "female".

reply
formatting help
[–] peter_t_2k3 (959) 3 years ago

I can't remember Bill's sexuality being a massive thing, just mentioned once or twice, but in an organic way. This is the problem I have with the whole woke thing - it seems anything non straight white gets marked as woke.

Don't get me wrong, I dislike when its obvious people are put in for diversity, but Bill to me worked so well being a down to earth normal person, some relatable. You also have to remember she came straight after Clara who was a bit over the top, even trying to become the doctor. People did complain at times it was becoming the Clara show. Having someone just normal - not stupid but not a brainiac, worked.

reply
formatting help
[–] cyguration (3881) 3 years ago

What did Bill's sexuality have to do with the over-arching plot of Doctor Who?

reply
formatting help
[–] peter_t_2k3 (959) 3 years ago

Its called character. What does Jack's sexuality have to do with the show? Nothing, but it adds something to the character and I have no issue with it as long as its just part of them as in not the only thing

reply
formatting help
[–] cyguration (3881) 3 years ago

If it has nothing to do with the overarching plot, and nothing to do with the story, and that specific character development adds nothing to the story, then that's what we call token pandering. Because that element is being virtue signaled for the sake of propaganda purposes; normalizing ideologies.

That fits right in with why people have an issue with it. You know how in the show Daredevil they made it a point that one of his characteristics that he picked up from his dad was to be resilient and to never give up? Well, guess what? That actually played a part in the development of his character and affected not only the fight scenes but how the actual plot unfolded as well.

Character traits that are embedded in the story, organically, are not virtue signaling.

Character traits that are broadcast with no relation to the story whatsoever is called virtue signaling.

Virtue signaling is Left-wing agitprop.

Left-wing agitprop is what we call being "woke".

reply
formatting help
[–] peter_t_2k3 (959) 3 years ago

Firstly as I've not seen daredevil I cannot comment on it.

The problem is if they had brought her sexuality up more people would complain about it even more. For me they did it the best way possible, by establishing it but not making a big deal about it. As I mentioned by making it a part of who she was while at the same time not what defines her. Personally to me that is the most organic way to do it. If we had to be constantly reminded then to me that would be unorganic and feel somewhat forced and in your face.

It's like the gay couple in praxeus. I thought they where written well because they didn't go for the stereotypical portrayl. Sometimes I do feel like the media only shows the over the top camp side of gays which some people are and there's nothing wrong with that but some aren't like that.

While I'm not really a big fan of 13 (although I do think she became a lot better in series 12) I feel the way they dealt with the transition from male to female was also the best possible way by kind of acknowledging it but then just leaving it like it was nothing

reply
formatting help
[–] cyguration (3881) 3 years ago

For me they did it the best way possible, by establishing it but not making a big deal about it.


The fact it was brought up without having anything to do with the story and found its way into the media without some people even having to see the episode is the WORST way to make a deal out of it. It's like making Soldier 76 and Tracer gay in Overwatch and doing media campaigns about it while it had ZERO to do with the brand's in-game lore or story.

As I mentioned by making it a part of who she was while at the same time not what defines her.


Too late. It is what defines her, hence why you have to justify a trait that has no bearing on the story.

It's like the gay couple in praxeus. I thought they where written well because they didn't go for the stereotypical portrayl. Sometimes I do feel like the media only shows the over the top camp side of gays which some people are and there's nothing wrong with that but some aren't like that.


Who cares? And why should it matter to the majority of the audience who happens to be straight?

It's like saying "I'm glad they showed that BDSM couple in the one episode, because it shows that not all of them are into the same kind of kink."

If the show isn't about kinks and fetishists, then WHY exactly does that matter when it has nothing to do with what majority of the audience tunes in for?

While I'm not really a big fan of 13 (although I do think she became a lot better in series 12) I feel the way they dealt with the transition from male to female was also the best possible way by kind of acknowledging it but then just leaving it like it was nothing


Except they didn't. They beat people over the head with it at every turn in the media every chance they got, and then retconned their own story to accommodate the feminist angle they took the show in.

reply
formatting help
[–] peter_t_2k3 (959) 3 years ago

I'm not a fan of the retcon but I feel in series 11 it was handled well in the TV show at least, just a shame that series 11 was dull.

And Bill's sexaity wasn't what defined her. If it was it would have been mentioned a lot more. We are obviously going to have to agree to disagree on the subject. I just feel myself if they make it a big part people complain but if they do the opposite people complain about it adding nothing so it shouldn't be there. Just feels like you can't win.

reply
formatting help
[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

"become a slogan because people shout it out without any meaning."

kinda like Racist, Homophobe, transphobe, Toxic, Patriarchy etc right?

reply
formatting help
[–] peter_t_2k3 (959) 3 years ago

If people use them without meaning I'm against it. There are people like this sadly on each side

reply
formatting help
[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

The show runners of Doctor Who told the world they were going to cast a female as the next Doctor, not because there was some reason within the story to do so but simply because of outside reasons of diversity and inclusion... well at that point "woke" became a very valid thing to call the show.

Had the show been leaning toward liberal crap? Yes, but it is one thing for a show to lean in a particular direction, but when it was cast simply to fulfill a diversity quota it embraced the woke culture.

reply
formatting help
[–] moviechatterer (13468) 3 years ago

"not because there was some reason within the story to do so "
They dont need a reason!

You're basically saying:
"oh , well, i suppose i could accept a woman on my tv screen as long as it cant be avoided , if theres some plotline where dr who has to get into the ladies only toilets to see whats in there then thats ok .. But other wise i only want to see naked women on tv or real women in the kitchen maikn me a sammich!"

reply
formatting help
[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

You can't read very well can you. I said when the show runners said they were doing it for diversity reasons. If the show had popped up with a woman and nothing had been said outside the show by the ones making it that it was all because of diversity and inclusion then it you couldn't say it was a woke decision. It may have been because that was where the story was going... but as soon as the woke warriors running the show stated the reason and it was for diversity and inclusion then it confirmed that the it was woke. If you are too stupid to understand that then fine. I'm sure lots of woke warriors want to try and make excuses to try and hide things like this.

reply
formatting help
[–] moviechatterer (13468) 3 years ago

nope , still hearing the same shit from you.
You hate diversity , and you only want it to happen if the story demands it , or by accident.


yo momma: Hey i got some daffodils becasue the garden could do with more yellow
you: Well thats you just pushing your agenda isnt it! if you NEEDED yellow to win a compettion fine , or if you got random seeds that turned out yellow fine , but to put yellow in there just becasue you felt there wasnt enough yellow - thats WOKE! (and therefore somehow bad)




reply
formatting help
[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

I hate diversity when it is artificial and simply put in place by a quota. Anyone that thinks otherwise is by definition a racist. So have a good day racist.

reply
formatting help
[–] Martoto (4289) 3 years ago

Tell us what the story reason was for replacing the white haired grandfatherly first doctor with a dark haired pixie hobo? And him with a dandy martial artist, and him with a Tom Baker, or him with a cricketer.... And so on.

reply
formatting help
[–] peter_t_2k3 (959) 3 years ago

Exactly. I was a bit unsure at first, as personally I'd always seen the doctor as a male character. I also was worried the show was doing things not by choice but by peer pressure and was worried they'd not pick the best person if they didn't fit what they where looking for.

However waiting for series 11 I got excited. The show had gotten stale doing the same thing and was excited for new possibilities. Not the biggest fan of 13 but that has nothing on the doctor being female

reply
formatting help
[–] peter_t_2k3 (959) 3 years ago

But this was already established previously with missy

reply
formatting help
[–] peter_t_2k3 (959) 3 years ago

I think diversity played a part but diversity can be good. The problem is if your issue with the show at the moment is the doctor is female, then that isn't changing anytime soon - either stop watching or wait until there's someone else. Complaining every day/week etc. that the show has gone woke does nothing.

The thing is I too was against a female doctor originally, but i'd always presumed the doctor was a male character. However as humans we are judging the doctor on a human, forgetting he is an alien and to them sex might not mean anything. I remember years ago watching the remake of Solaris (not seen the original) and the idea being that they were trying to understand something that they never could understand, but kept trying to understand it in a human way. What is to say if aliens existed, they'd be like us, they might be completely different.

reply
formatting help
[–] CheekyMonkey (584) 3 years ago

Go woke, get broke...

It's a saying and part of the English language now...

reply
formatting help
[–] moviechatterer (13468) 3 years ago

no ones debating that , the discussion is about what the word means.

reply
formatting help
[–] CheekyMonkey (584) 3 years ago

It means to be progressive, to be intersectional, SJW or any other form of leftism...

reply
formatting help
[–] moviechatterer (13468) 3 years ago

Ah , so it means "to be nice to people" ?

reply
formatting help
[–] moviechatterer (13468) 3 years ago

inclusion and justice!
why are they bad things?

reply
formatting help
[–] CheekyMonkey (584) 3 years ago

So anyone who isn't "woke" is by this definition, a bad person... lol...
Truly cult-like thinking...

reply
formatting help
[–] moviechatterer (13468) 3 years ago

sorry , rewind.
when you claified what woke meant by saying
It means to be progressive, to be intersectional, SJW or any other form of leftism..
I didnt really understand any of those words or why they are 'left' .Heres my guesses

progressive - doesent force blacks to sit at back of bus etc
intersectional - ? no idea
SJW - stands up for the oppressed , eg , black and womens rights
any other form of leftism - i really dont see what left, right or politics generally has to do with this.

reply
formatting help
[–] CheekyMonkey (584) 3 years ago

You need to read more about the new left of the 1960s in the US to understand these concepts.

After you do that, you'll be able to understand the origins of the ideas behind critical race theory (which is why you immediately went to blacks at the back of the bus as your example of not being progressive), intersectionality (what makes black, women's and gay rights align together in the leftist mindset, i.e. SJW) and then you'll finally be able to understand why the culture war that you are being subjected to is political (for that you'll have to read up on the post modernists of the late 60s and their idiocy).

These are the ideological roots of wokeness and PC culture. Even the ardent supporters of this ideology recognise that this is where it comes from. However, to understand why their leftist ideas are complete folly, one only needs to look at the results...

As you seem like a progressive yourself (or have internalised those values), maybe you should google or YouTube Camille Paglia... She's a 60s professor from that era... That should give you an idea from a leftist point of view as I doubt you're ready for Thomas Sowell or such thinkers...

reply
formatting help
[–] peter_t_2k3 (959) 3 years ago

The problem is people have different meanings. Take doctor who, if its woke now then surely its was woke from the start. I mean take The Green Death and its message of pollution.

reply
formatting help
[–] CheekyMonkey (584) 3 years ago

Environmentalism is very woke... Came into political sphere with the new left in the 60s onwards... Now it is accepted as sacred truth within the progressive and corporate establishment.
It's just that the culture war is at fever pitch in recent years so people are noticing it in their entertainment now... I remember my younger siblings being indoctrinated watching cartoons like Captain Planet and such... One of them is vegan now...

Sexual politics, gender acceptance and environmentalism are all part of wokeness... In the 90s we called it politically correct...

reply
formatting help
[–] peter_t_2k3 (959) 3 years ago

My point is though peoole act like its new and has ruined the show but if it is there as you've said it was there from the start.

I will agree the political stuff has sometimes been a bit more evident and in your face but it was always there. Look at Helen A in the happiness patrol who is basically a parody of Margaret Thatcher.

reply
formatting help
[–] CheekyMonkey (584) 3 years ago

Not new, but certainly accelerated exponentially...

reply
formatting help
[–] ChoovieMatt (148) 3 years ago

"Indoctrinated" by Captain Planet!? That's an awesome thought. Maybe your sibling has other reasons for being vegan than a shitty cartoon, perhaps they're aware of the industry practices and disapprove of them? God forbid someone have their own thought NOT planted by liberal media.

And by THAT metric, a counter would exist that tells people NOT to like anyone who is different to them, that heterodox thinking is a bad thing, that environmental concerns are a hoax. You suggest people are indoctrinated by the former, with a tacit suggestion they're feeble minded so be taken advantage of in that way, but don't consider that right leaning individuals haven't been manipulated all along by other media.

reply
formatting help
[–] CheekyMonkey (584) 3 years ago

He is vegan, so wouldn't eat animals even if hunted from the wild.

This environmentalism/veganism is an ideological belief generated by the global establishment... He, and millions in Europe and the West, didn't suddenly discover some ancient Hindu or Jain practices... They didn't spontaneously have a spiritual awakening, these ideas were generated in Universities in the 60s/70s and propagated onwards throughout the establishment, as these people took positions in government, the media/press, NGOs, corporations and supranational bodies... This isn't something that is grass roots... It is very much top down and therefore manufactured culture (movies, TV shows for kids, etc...) reflect this value system the most...

It gained most potency as the previous leftist paradigm was destroyed (International Socialism/USSR) by the late 80s... It is a useful paradigm and secular religion for the internationalist left... But if you are a true believer, it will be difficult for you to appreciate this...

reply
formatting help
[–] ChoovieMatt (148) 3 years ago

OR: the practices of the meat and/or dairy industries were exposed and made people second guess the costs of that diet and scientific advances showed them that they could have a diet without needing an animal to suffer or die for their hunger.

I like animals, so I choose not to eat them. Simple as that.

If you really think cartoons and movements influenced that decision, then enjoy living in a bubble of paranoia where everything is out to get you - I just like cows.

reply
formatting help
[–] CheekyMonkey (584) 3 years ago

As I said, you are a true believer, you wouldn't get it...

People have slaughtered animals for food for our entire history. It is a natural part of who we are.

No amount of "wokeness" will change this.

reply
formatting help
[–] ChoovieMatt (148) 3 years ago

Good job I'm agnostic and not really a believer in anything then really, least of all a theory that Captain effing Planet is the root cause of someone's veganism.

Your level of condescension is staggering.

reply
formatting help
[–] CheekyMonkey (584) 3 years ago

You believe in veganism... You don't eat animals for ideological reasons. Therefore you are a believer in this secular religion.

In other words, "woke"...

No condescension. You have your beliefs and I have mine.

reply
formatting help
[–] ChoovieMatt (148) 3 years ago

I don't believe in 'wokeness'. As nobody can define what it even is, how can anyone subscribe to it?

It's very black and white, narrowminded thinking to sweep everybody with different perspectives to you own (right-leaning?) worldview into one box and say: "You're all woke!"

Is someone who is a vegan but also a racist woke?

I like animals. Don't really want to eat them, but don't mind that other people do. No ideology, just a fondness for living things.

reply
formatting help
[–] CheekyMonkey (584) 3 years ago

Vegans are so woke that they have extended SJW to non-humans...

I don't make up these terms... It's pretty clear what this is...

Why are you so adamant about erasing the word "woke"? You can look it up in the various dictionaries and read it used in context...

You are concerned with policing the meaning of the word "woke" because you don't like what it refers to, i.e. that it identifies the ideological underpinnings of progressive beliefs in animal rights, social justice, etc...

Woke progressives like to pretend that these beliefs spring naturally as an individualistic choice, rather than being a coherent ideological belief system with roots in Critical Race Theory, Post Modernism and such ideas from the 1960s/1970 academia in the US and the Frankfurt school...

But maybe you are just a woke vegan poster online and are not aware of the ideological system/secular religion that has produced the beliefs that you ascribe to... that's ok... You can belief what you want... But it won't change the meaning of the word "woke", nor will it make veganism any less woke...

reply
formatting help
[–] ChoovieMatt (148) 3 years ago

Read back, I never once claimed I was vegan. I'm an off-the-shelf vegetarian. You extrapolated incorrectly because you're so eager to be able to pigeonhole people who disagree with you.

"I don't make up these terms... It's pretty clear what this is..." - really, it isn't. Nobody is able to come up with the apparent tenets of 'wokeness', just say things like "it's obvious" or "you can see it everywhere" in a convenient deflection from the fact that nobody has ever come up with an agreed definition or if it exists at all beyond a buzzword from 2017, and try to funnel everything towards it because it's easier to just say "oh Group X is woke" rather than make an effort to understand what makes them different to Groups Y and Z. Pretty standard othering theory when you break it down.

It's about as insightful as people who say all right-wingers are Nazis.

reply
formatting help
[–] CheekyMonkey (584) 3 years ago

Using phrases like "othering theory" is woke... and is consistent with the dictionary definition of the term...

Merriam Webster... https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/woke

Oxford Dictionary... https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/woke_2

reply
formatting help
[–] ChoovieMatt (148) 3 years ago

Christ alive, what ISN'T woke for you?

reply
formatting help
[–] CheekyMonkey (584) 3 years ago

Yes, Christ isn't woke. But I suppose that is a much larger discussion...

reply
formatting help
[–] ChoovieMatt (148) 3 years ago

Only because he's been co-opted by the Christian Right and whitewashed to service their innate prejudices.

reply
formatting help
[–] CheekyMonkey (584) 3 years ago

I disagree, but rather than getting into a theological discussion about Christ, allow me to point out that the current Pope is very much "woke"...

reply
formatting help
[–] peter_t_2k3 (959) 3 years ago

I'm sorry but how do we get from women and religion to vegansim. As I've mentioned everyone seems to have a different view from everyone at what woke is and I've never heard it being related to what you do or do not eat. After the two doctors the doctor technically went vegetarian for a bit.

Also as chooviematt says what if they are a vegan white supremacist? Are they woke? Again this is evidence that there is no definition. I could argue that all the people kicking of about wokeness are part of a group kicking off about wrongdoings so in turn are woke themselves

reply
formatting help
[–] ChoovieMatt (148) 3 years ago

Right?

It's like EVERYTHING they view as remotely left-leaning gets bulldozed into this new exciting term they can use.

reply
formatting help
[–] peter_t_2k3 (959) 3 years ago

And the problem is each person has their own definition and what is and isn't. I mean doctor who has always leaned to the left yet they claim the show is woke now and ruined.

The thing is some of their stuff I understand and I was myself against a female doctor as I've stated quite a few times. Personally at the time I felt the doctor was a male charterer mainly due to the fact that was all we'd known them by. But the show was going stale and needed something different so I got excited at what the change would bring and realisled I had been judging an alien on our own race/society etc.

As I've also mentioned the ones complaining the show is woke are those who don't seem to be able to still get over the fact the doctor changed sex. I feel the show could do anything and they'd still claim woke because the doctor.is a women so don't get why they keep watching

reply
formatting help
[–] CheekyMonkey (584) 3 years ago

Woke is pretty well defined as a term. Highly associated with SJW culture...

This is from the dictionary... https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/woke-meaning-origin

We can play the post-modern game that words don't have meaning and that everything is anything, but that's being disingenuous... Woke is clearly about being aware of and concerned with SJW matters...

My nuanced take was that veganism has emerged by extending social justice to animals... Which is a view not only promoted by vegans themselves in propaganda films such as Earthlings but also clearly displayed in the replies to my comments on this very thread and by every vegan who I've met in real life...

If you don't like my vegan take, fine... That doesn't change the fact that the word "woke" is very well defined and associated with SJWism belief and advocacy...

reply
formatting help
[–] ChoovieMatt (148) 3 years ago

Yes - it's a take, not a fact.

But you're so inflexibly married to anything 'lefty' being shoehorned into some overarching woke category. People's lives are not nearly that straightforward, thus the 'would a racist vegan be woke?' question you've now been asked twice.

reply
formatting help
[–] CheekyMonkey (584) 3 years ago

Am I obligated to answer your questions? lol... You guys won't even recognise the dictionary definition of woke, hence this entire thread...

But let's consider your hypothetical vegan racist... That person would be woke in terms of environmentalism, but not woke in terms of SJW/racism...

This is how the word woke is used in contemporary English... (chiefly American)...

reply
formatting help
[–] ChoovieMatt (148) 3 years ago

I'm happy with etymology and the definition, but the tenets of the term are nowhere to be found, which allows people to keep adding more aspects to it until it's nothing but a list of things right-leaning people don't like.

And now you're allowing for people to be partially woke in one sense, but the antithesis of it in another? If the strokes are so broad then it's going to apply to just about everyone, no?

reply
formatting help
[–] CheekyMonkey (584) 3 years ago

No. You came up with the special case hypothetical...
Even if you can find a genuine vegan racist, that is very much an outlier...

You guys on this thread just want to pretend that wokeness doesn't exist by arguing semantics... These word games have been played by the left since Orwell's days... Not fooling anyone...

reply
formatting help
[–] ChoovieMatt (148) 3 years ago

Not so, plenty of folks have cognitively dissonant views on various subjects.

I don't get this need to want to categorise everybody.

reply
formatting help
[–] peter_t_2k3 (959) 3 years ago

Just because it says it online means nothing. People have different views. For example I've never really heard people talking about vegans in relation of wokeness. Surely if vegans are woke wouldn't vegetarians be?

My point is now it seems you can't even have a black character without people claiming it is woke. If it felt forced I could at least slightly understand but it feels to me everything non male white gets the word woke thrown at it at least by someone.

For example as I've mentioned people kicked off with Bill but I didn't feel her colour really played a part, she was played as a person and her skin colour to me seemed irrelevant in the show. People as didn't like the fact they'd made her a lesbian but I didn't feel this was thrown around too much and it felt natural rather than forced like it was a part of her but not what defined her which to me is the best way to do it. Hell its not like the show hadn't had multiple straight females and had many of them falling for the doctor

reply
formatting help
[–] CheekyMonkey (584) 3 years ago

It's ok... You'll feel natural about men pretending to be women eventually...

It will all be normalised, but surely there is no political ideology or agenda involved... All completely naturally occurring and spontaneous... Just like Western veganism... I'm sure none of this has anything to do with wokeness... /s ... lol

reply
formatting help
[–] ChoovieMatt (148) 3 years ago

Every response I read from you seems to move closer to a definition of: 'Compassion for anything = woke.'

reply
formatting help
[–] ChoovieMatt (148) 3 years ago

"Any" other form of leftism? I think not.

Having left-leaning political views does not make you an SJW or one of those people who complains that HobNobs should be renamed because it could be offensive to someone somewhere.

reply
formatting help
[–] Martoto (4289) 3 years ago

Correct. It's just a way of signalling their distress at the idea that something is being made for other people and not for them.

reply
formatting help
[–] peter_t_2k3 (959) 3 years ago

Yeah and a lot of it seems to be their still butt hurt from the doctor changing sex. Like if you don't like the change fine but stop going on about it

reply
formatting help
[–] Martoto (4289) 3 years ago

There's been a campaign to find "woke/pc" things since way before that.

Mickey
Capt Jack
River
Martha

And so on.

All of them were supposedly shoehorned in with no "story reason".

reply
formatting help
[–] peter_t_2k3 (959) 3 years ago

Hell some seem to make it as if having a strong female also makes it woke so that would include ace, rose etc.

reply
formatting help
[–] ChoovieMatt (148) 3 years ago

Cue kukuxu with his lecture on how Woke is a religion any moment now...

reply
formatting help
[–] kukuxu (5409) 3 years ago

Obviously, 'woke' is not a religion.

'Wokeness' is the religion. 'Woke' is the person who belongs to that faith. Please, let's use the proper terms.

reply
formatting help
[–] ChoovieMatt (148) 3 years ago

But then what would you have to moan about repeatedly?

reply
formatting help
[–] Satan2016 (23533) 3 years ago

I've said that too. Marxism has been called secular religion for decades because of it's cultish nature. Just ask a Cuban.

reply
formatting help
[–] ChoovieMatt (148) 3 years ago

YOU SAID IT TOO!? Oh wow that's all the proof I need.

reply
formatting help
[–] kukuxu (5409) 3 years ago

Exactly. The common element in religion is not some supernatural being. There's religions without supernatural elements.

They key element is the sense of transcendence, religions are mean to guide the people to the light (or what they consider the light), to be the (alleged) beacon in the darkness. You have that in Christianism, you have that in Latin-American Marxism, and you have that in Wokeness.

reply
formatting help
[–] ChoovieMatt (148) 3 years ago

By that metric anything that anybody ardently believes - sane or not - becomes a religion, from an obsessed One Direction fangirl who perceives her idols to be 'guiding' her, alien abduction victims, Judas Priest records played backwards, to a gun-toting wackadoo who thinks shooting up school will lead them to the light.

Worship a damn brick if you think it'll show you the way. But you cast your net so wide as to include virtually anybody who embodies any sort of not-right wing thinking as to be a part of it, when they might just be nice folks who can't be arsed looking for differences and stirring up discontent.

Therefore it's a paradox, but keep trying.

reply
formatting help
[–] kukuxu (5409) 3 years ago

I'm afraid you're mixing concepts.

Wokeness is quite a defined and structured system. It provides guidance. The consequence is social decline, but that's irrelevant in this regard: toxic guidance is guidance nonetheless.

Playing a Judas Priest record backwards is plain and simple noise. Of course, you can obsess with it and imagine it's telling you to kill babies. But it's not. You're imagining it.

reply
formatting help
[–] ChoovieMatt (148) 3 years ago

Oh, I see THOSE people are imagining it, but you're not imagining wokeness as a 'defined and structured' religion in some paranoid delusion aided by your disapproval of the world as you see it? RIIIIGHT.

Please tell us where these 'defined and structured' tenets of wokeness are described?

reply
formatting help
[–] kukuxu (5409) 3 years ago

Oh, I see THOSE people are imagining it, but you're not imagining wokeness as a 'defined and structured' religion in some paranoid delusion aided by your disapproval of the world as you see it? RIIIIGHT.

Exactly. I'm not "imaging in some paranoid delusion" that there's a woke agenda in Hollywood, in mainstream media and in academia. It's clearly there.

reply
formatting help
[–] ChoovieMatt (148) 3 years ago

You've signed your own commitment papers with this admission.

Take it you'll get back to me on the location of the definitions and structure of wokeness?

Merry Whatever-doesn't-offend-you.

reply
formatting help
[–] kukuxu (5409) 3 years ago

You've signed your own commitment papers with this admission.

I was wondering how long it would take to you to start with insults and personal attacks. Well, it wasn't long.

reply
formatting help
[–] ChoovieMatt (148) 3 years ago

Well, you edited your previous post, so that's on you. And as I know nothing of you on a personal level, it can't really be a personal attack.

"It's clearly there" is not an answer to what you termed as 'defined and structured' - it's a perspective. Regardless of whether there are progressive elements cropping up all over, that's still not 'defined and structured'.

reply
formatting help
[–] kukuxu (5409) 3 years ago

And as I know nothing of you on a personal level, it can't really be a personal attack.

I see. Since you know nothing of me on a personal level, you can insult me without that being a personal attack. Of course 😂

reply
formatting help
[–] ChoovieMatt (148) 3 years ago

Sure whatever - but where are the tenets of wokeness defined please? This is what I'm interested in finding out.

reply
formatting help
[–] kukuxu (5409) 3 years ago

Dude, you just insulted me. You insult people and you expect them to keep talking with you just like that? Learn how to socialize with people, and fuck off.

reply
formatting help
[–] ChoovieMatt (148) 3 years ago

Deflect, deflect, deflect.

reply
formatting help
[–] Moonglum9 (10730) 3 years ago

This post is totally something a woke person would say!

reply
formatting help
[–] peter_t_2k3 (959) 3 years ago

I always believe being in the middle is the best

reply
formatting help
[–] NotoriousRio (12927) 3 years ago

You like threesomes?

reply
formatting help
[–] cyguration (3881) 3 years ago

The absolute rule of Centrists is that they always side with the Left.

reply
formatting help
[–] asom (6515) 3 years ago

I'm a centrist. Even worse, i'm a centrist that leans left.

And i still hate woke culture.

So your absolute statement is absolutely wrong.

reply
formatting help
[–] cyguration (3881) 3 years ago

If that were true we wouldn't have lost our culture, our entertainment, and our politics to the loonies on the Left.

Everyone who claims to be a Centrist has either morally waived or excused the behavior of the extreme Left, leading them to controlling our culture in the worst ways imaginable.

reply
formatting help
[–] asom (6515) 3 years ago

So if I'm not a nazi/fascist/alt-right/KKK I'm excusing the behavior of the extreme left? What kind fucked up logic is that???

No, the existence or the acts of any extreme would not change my position from center left. Being center left doesn't mean that i accept or i support the woke culture. You are couldn't be more wrong.

You didn't lose your culture due to the ones on the center, you lost your culture due to the ones that don't have a position, most americans don't even know the real meaning of words like liberal, left, right, centrist, socialist, fascist, etc anyway ...

reply
formatting help
[–] cyguration (3881) 3 years ago

So if I'm not a nazi/fascist/alt-right/KKK I'm excusing the behavior of the extreme left? What kind fucked up logic is that???


Who said you had to be any of those things?

That's the problem right there. The Left controls so much of the narrative that they've brainwashed people into thinking that anyone who isn't siding with "Progressivism", "Liberalism", "Inclusion", or that dreaded "Diversity" is slotted into one of the three categories you just named.

The major problem is that every time issues related to censorship, cultural coercion, and identity corruption arise there is a large majority of those who claim to be in the Center (or Center Left) who make excuses for every inch the Left takes in pushing the Overton Window further Left.

And for every Centrist who says "I don't support..." whatever lunacy the Left is juggling for show and tell, they seem deftly complacent in allowing it to take effect... as evident by the fact that we HAVE lost our culture, and it doesn't look like we'll be getting it back anytime soon.

reply
formatting help
[–] peter_t_2k3 (959) 3 years ago

It works both ways though. I've been labeled a troll simply for not agreeing with the fact that doctor who is woke or certainly as woke as they claim.

The problem is it seems to me anything that isn't a non white male is labelled woke. As I mentioned a while back people where saying the upcoming James bond film was woke due to the trailer which showed a new 00 agent who was female and black. You really can't base something from a trailer.

It's like people kicking off about bill in series 10. Many where kicking off when they showed the first trailer because she was going to be the worst companion ever which was ridiculous because there wasn't a lot to go on. Yes she was black and also a lesbian but I never felt it was done in a way that felt forced and in your face. But it felt like people seen she was a lesbian and black and got worked up.

I will say there are definitely people on the left who take things too far. When Bill for example was introduced there was an article from a feminist complaining she was just there for male eye candy. It was definitely stupid

reply
formatting help
[–] cyguration (3881) 3 years ago

As I mentioned a while back people where saying the upcoming James bond film was woke due to the trailer which showed a new 00 agent who was female and black. You really can't base something from a trailer.


No one gave two pence about the black female 00 agent, people gave a dove's tail about the fact that she was originally written to replace 007 and take on the 007 moniker, which fans RIGHTFULLY got angry about.

You can even still find the articles about it... heck, this is still on the front page of Google if you look it up:
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/jul/15/james-bond-007-black-female-actor-lashana-lynch-daniel-craig

THAT is what people had an issue with.

But as I said, Centrist always make excuses and justify the corruption of culture, especially white European culture, and always find some way to downplay the usurpation by the Left of things that don't belong to them.

reply
formatting help
[–] peter_t_2k3 (959) 3 years ago

From what I gathered she wasn't replacing bond just taking his code name in that film.

It's a tricky thing because in the context of doctor who the doctor is an alien and so we can't judge human traits on the character but bond was always written as a male human.

That being said maybe introducing a female agent could lead to a spin off. I don't see an issue with that, introducing a female agent and then starting a new franchise from it.

reply
formatting help
[–] cyguration (3881) 3 years ago

They had that idea back with Halle Berry, but it never really materialized because -- despite being super hot -- Berry isn't a very good actress, nor is she reliable enough to anchor a franchise to.

This new chick is nowhere near as hot as Halle Berry, and saying she's taking over the 007 moniker is just atrocious. In all other cases agents are assigned the 00 status APART from the 007 code name. There's been a 006, a 008, and I believe a 009, but no one takes Bond's 007 agent status.

Even suggesting as such was worthy of the outcry it received, as no one who is a fan of Bond would have accepted such a distasteful measure.

reply
formatting help
[–] ChoovieMatt (148) 3 years ago

"And for every Centrist who says "I don't support..." whatever lunacy the Left is juggling for show and tell, they seem deftly complacent in allowing it to take effect..."

Yeah, see also 'Christians' who are happy to keep quiet in the face of far right extremism. It cuts both ways, no use pretending it doesn't, and entertainment does not equal all culture, just a segment of it. Plenty of things still play into the hands of center or right ideologies.

reply
formatting help
[–] cyguration (3881) 3 years ago

Yeah, see also 'Christians' who are happy to keep quiet in the face of far right extremism.


Except that's a media concoction; a boogeyman beefed up by the Left's (and by proxy, the Center's) propaganda machine known as the mainstream media.

The Right wasn't the one burning down minority businesses and homes all throughout 2020, that was the Left: Antifa and BLM.

The Right wasn't the one who caused billions of dollars in damage to urban communities, commercial districts and suburban neighborhoods throughout 2020, that was the Left: Antifa and BLM.

The Right wasn't the one who surprised Biden's son's hebephilic incest, it was the Left and all their pro-pedo cronies (you won't find any of the salacious details regarding Hunter's disgusting relationship with Natalie Biden, his niece, on Google. The search engine censored all of the results. You can still find some images/videos on Hoodsite, and on some sites via Yandex).

Plenty of things still play into the hands of center or right ideologies.


No they don't. Even Hallmark has been taken over by the LGBTQIA+'s Rainbow Reich. Even Fox News is now espousing Leftist talking points. EVERYTHING is now Leftist. Heck, even the Pope now supports degeneracy and forced vaccinations.

Freedom is dead.

reply
formatting help
[–] ChoovieMatt (148) 3 years ago

Ah right, it's media concoction when it doesn't favor the right. Convenient.

And it's all ANTIFA and BLM, not Confederate flag waving assholes. Sure, Jan.

Maybe it's YOU that's veered off course, not 'EVERYTHING' else?

reply
formatting help
[–] peter_t_2k3 (959) 3 years ago

I'm from the UK so my knowledge about Trump and Biden is limited but Google seems to suggest that Trump accused bidens son for being a pedo. So the person who he's against smears someone and that makes it 100 percent true?

I'm not saying it couldn't be but its like these videos on the corona virus that people belive, you have to take anything online with a pinch of salt. I mean I work in retail and a colleague apparently had a customer asking why she wasn't taking down 5g masts because that's the cause of covid.

Again whether those in the left have led to some stuff is irrelevant. People on each side are causing issues. As someone who has classed myself in the middle I tend to see extremes on both sides and tend to think both are taking things too far

reply
formatting help
[–] ChoovieMatt (148) 3 years ago

We live in a post-truth era, largely thanks to Trump getting 'fake news' as a trending term. People would sooner believe an anonymous Reddit poster than various independent news networks.

Once in that hole, it's difficult to get out of. One of the Sandy Hook parents was in the news the other day as he still gets death threats from people saying he and his (dead) son are actors. He's an ex-conspiracy theorist, so has quite an objective perspective.

reply
formatting help
[–] peter_t_2k3 (959) 3 years ago

Yeah the thing is most people aren't stupid and know the media can lie or manipulate stuff although often newsreaders probably don't have a clue and just read what their given. But I don't get why people who don't belive the media are often quick to belive whatever people put online. It's like these people forget what the Internet is. Conspiracy theories interest me but believing them like they are the truth is dangerous. Anyone can make a theory and point to things that appear to prove it

reply
formatting help
[–] cyguration (3881) 3 years ago

It's because of what was on Hunter Biden's laptop.

Google censored all of the results (and if you were really concerned with the truth you would ask "why?" but I get the feeling you won't and don't care).

If you go to search engines like Yippy or Yandex and type in "Hunter Biden, Natalie Biden, laptop, photos, tape, Hallie Biden, Joe Biden" you will get a number of interesting returns that will elucidate the matter. Basically, when Hallie (the widow of Joe's deceased son) messaged Joe about Hunter having sex with then 14-year-old Natalie Biden, Joe told her "Get into therapy". What kind of father-in-law says that?

But don't believe me, you can read the messages leaked from that laptop for yourself. Again, don't use Google or YouTube because those search terms are all blacklisted and shadowbanned. If you even mention "Yandex.com" and the Bidens' names on YouTube your comment will be summarily hidden or deleted.

Again, you should be asking why Big Tech is censoring all of this stuff rather than why people are willing to believe non-mainstream news sources, and then ask why mainstream news sources REFUSE to cover the actual facts.

reply
formatting help
[–] peter_t_2k3 (959) 3 years ago

But how do you know it is not just a fake story planted by Trump or his supporters. Evidence can be faked

reply
formatting help
[–] ChoovieMatt (148) 3 years ago

"Right wing extremists think the whole world is a leftist conspiracy" - Oliver Markus Malloy

reply
formatting help
[–] cyguration (3881) 3 years ago

Dude, literally, look up the photos and sex tape for yourself. You can literally watch it on a place called Hood site.

Multiple people have already verified the contents of the laptop, including the FBI. You can read the text messages between Hallie Biden and Joe Biden for yourself.

And then feel free to ask Joe Biden about it.

It's also hilarious because if it's so fake why is Google working so hard to censor and scrub the data so that you literally cannot even mention to people HOW to find the information?

If you even type in the Bidens' names in YouTube and where to go to find the photos/videos leaked from the laptop, your comments will be shadowbanned. If it's fake then there's nothing to hide, Hunter can just make a statement and say it's all fake.

Yet he can't because you can't fake the photos he's in, nor can you fake the photos that Natalie Biden is in, nor can you fake the video they're both in.

Watch the sex tape for yourself and look at the photos for yourself, and then get back to me how or where they could be fake.

reply
formatting help
[–] peter_t_2k3 (959) 3 years ago

I disagree. I'd class myself as more centre but I'm against all the trying to ban/remove all the stuff that may be offensive in things.

Comedy for example shouldn't have any boundaries joke wise. The problem is that everyone has a different level of what they find offensive. The way I see it is for example everyone generally have had someone they know deal with cancer, so when a comedian jokes about it it might seem personal but it isn't a personal attack.

reply
formatting help
[–] Moonglum9 (10730) 3 years ago

I agree about stopping using the word in slogans. We need to get going with starting a series of Woke Jokes:

Yo momma’s so woke, when she buys Neapolitan ice cream, she demands they add two more flavors.

reply
formatting help
[–] peter_t_2k3 (959) 3 years ago

Not in though, as a slogan

reply
formatting help
[–] asom (6515) 3 years ago

You mama is so fat that she just got hired as a body-positivity model.

reply
formatting help
[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

Yo momma’s so woke that kukuxu had to slip her 50 sleeping pills before composing a 250 page essay on how she is destroying white male culture.

reply
formatting help
About | Contact | Privacy | Terms | Standards | Contribute
Top Movie Discussions
Challengers Discussion | The Fall Guy Discussion | Civil War Discussion | Dune: Part Two Discussion | Love Lies Bleeding Discussion | Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes Discussion | Monkey Man Discussion | The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare Discussion | Abigail Discussion | Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire Discussion | Boy Kills World Discussion | Unsung Hero Discussion | Tarot Discussion | Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire Discussion | Kung Fu Panda 4 Discussion
Copyright © 2017 - 2024 MovieChat LLC

MovieChat is not affiliated with IMDb, IMDb Message Boards, or Reddit