MovieChat Forums > Army of the Dead (2021) Discussion > Posters screaming about "woke" in discus...

Posters screaming about "woke" in discussing this film are engaging in what's known as social contagion.

posted 3 years ago by [deleted]
55 replies | jump to latest

There's a thing known as "social contagion." Social contagion is the phenomenon of someone or a group of people with a demented point of view, way of life, etc. using media to normalize and spread these views and ways of life onto others, so that people who otherwise are normal start to feel, think and act like them.

One of the ways they do this is by using pop culture (video games, TVs and movies) as a conduit through which they can infect others. For example, a kid may have a perfectly healthy relationship to females. One day he plays a video game with a large Gamergate base, who then put out a huge spate of YouTube videos teaching players like him that the only reason why there were female characters in the game was to make him feel inferior, or that he should be suspicious whenever there is a woman anywhere in ANY game. Before long, he becomes "infected" by MRA and Incel talking points, and then does the same thing (also puts out YouTube videos after he has "seen the light.") Then the process repeats over and over again and the next thing you know, you have a social contagion, by way of this video game and YouTube.

That's what's happening with this movie. Nobody ranting about this film being "woke" actually saw it or if they did, watched in the spirit in which it was intended. This is just another IP being seized as a conduit to "infect" people with their mentally ill views on women and human relationships, in the hopes that those people will not only join the ranks but spread the contagion.

Bottom line, when you come across people like this, the worst thing you can do is argue with them, because this only validates them as having a valid point of view. What you can do is call them out for what they are and what they're doing.

[–] MichaelJPollock (651) 3 years ago

What comes out of your post is the image of a worldview where some people are deemed to have (I quote) "demented" or "mentally ill" views, and others are (I quote again) "normal", and that the former should not even be "argued with" by the latter, who are at risk of being "contaminated".
See if you can find any examples in recent history of similar worldviews/rhetoric, and where they lead.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

Why don't you point out those examples and explain where they lead, rather than do that cute psyops strategy of implying by inference? I think it's because if you did, you'd know how deranged you sounded.

[–] MichaelJPollock (651) 3 years ago

Maybe because the passive-aggressive tone of your reply indicates you're all too aware of what those examples are and where they lead?

How "deranged" I sound. Interesting. "Demented" point of views, "mentally ill" views...
Would you say systematically referring to points of view you don't agree with as being products of mental illness or senescence (for example, in order to avoid having to rationally deconstruct and criticize them) is one of the several strategies one might use as part of a so-called "psyops" (whether cute or not)?

[–] Alex (1489) 3 years ago

Damn, dude. That's a first-degree murder right there.

[–] MichaelJPollock (651) 3 years ago

Well, if it's that indeed, it was not my intention to "murder" anybody. Not an online game I enjoy very much.
I don't know the OP, or his or her true intentions. I can only assume he or she has strong beliefs about things he or she cares deeply about and feels they should be defended. Same as I do.
But that original post whiffs of intellectual dishonesty, and that I have a problem with.

[–] kukuxu (5409) 3 years ago

I've said it before, but my personal theory is that wokeness is a religion. And I mean it literally.

Political disagreement can be harsh. However, it's supposed that the others, while wrong, are sane and well-intended. Of course, wrong policies (no matter how well intended) can be extremely dangerous, that's why political arguments can become sour.

Religions, on the other side, presume that those who don't share it are either evil or mentally ill.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/25/nigerian-man-locked-up-atheist

[–] MichaelJPollock (651) 3 years ago

Interesting. It would seem so too.

I suppose discovery of the scientific method had to jeopardize the very existence of all religious faiths, and that the vacuum left (or in the process of being left) by the crisis of major organised religions will have to be filled by something else. Maybe because human beings have an inherent spiritual dimension to them, and are hardwired to experience and long for religious feelings (maybe like any other human drives, sex, self-expression, etc.).

Science, as great as it is, is pretty poor at providing us with either a feeling of transcendence or meaning to our lives (precisely because it's a "method", not a philosophy or ideology...). And so it would seem people turn to whatever system of ideas seems to explain the world in a way that's simple enough to grasp (at the cost of eschewing the glorious complexity of nature) and where they're part of the good guys (by externalizing evil).

In all fairness, I'd say "wokeness" is pretty seductive if you think of it on these terms... but anything (or anyone) trying to seduce you probably has an agenda or is trying to sell you something.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

Right. Thanks for proving my point. You still won't state flatly what you meant because, like I said in my earlier post, you'd know how demented or trollish you would sound.

[–] Redsfan001 (6023) 3 years ago

Interesting theory and there is some truth in your OP. Like the yellow Volkswagen theory you tend to look for it if it is your mind.

But what many are complaining about is that women are essentially acting like men isn't reality!(bossy, essentially being assholes) What you are seeing in movies and media is NOT reality. When dangerous conditions occur women usually cower and,if they have children, protect them. Women do not generally rush to danger. Women are a more empathetic sex and use tact.

How much can the media change a culture that has been male dominant for all of human history is going to be a interesting thing to see.

Will we see more true warrior females? Will more females turn into asshole males? Or is biology a stronger factor?

[–] JakeSWITCH (504) 3 years ago

It seems like most newly released film on the MovieChat boards have at least one thread complaining about how “woke” it is by people who spend way too much time online. I agree that it has become tiresome and one of the downsides to MovieChat.

Since “calling them out” only adds to the thread and bumps it back to the top of the page again, maybe avoid engaging and try reporting them to the forum moderators.

--------------------------------------------
You can read all of my latest film reviews here: https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/about/Jake

[–] MichaelJPollock (651) 3 years ago

"Since “calling them out” only adds to the thread and bumps it back to the top of the page again, maybe avoid engaging and try reporting them to the forum moderators."
***
That sounds like a good idea! Suppress divergent points of view, instead of engaging with their authors to rationally deconstruct and criticize them.
And then in the same breath, remember to declare "cancel culture" is no more a thing than woke agendas in films.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

By calling them out, I didn't mean starting a callout thread.

I meant to stop debating with them as if they had a valid point of view--i.e., simply state that they're probably engaging in social contagion and then just be done with it.

Why? Ironically, one of the most effective means of social contagion is getting people to argue. The reason why is that arguments give the troll farmers opportunities to disseminate talking points.

For example, say a new Charlie's Angels comes out. A social contagion troll farmer rants about how this is a sign of Feminazism run amok. The troll farmer couldn't care less if you start attacking him or arguing why he's wrong. In fact, that's exactly what he wants. He wants people to disagree with him, so that every time someone says, "No, you're wrong," he can disseminate a talking point to try to spread the contagion to anyone reading the debate.

I see this crap on my blog all the time. I might post something about, say, Gone with the Wind. One of these social contagion trolls will argue with me about Feminazism. Next thing you know, he'll be talking about "Muslim rape gangs in England." What does what's happening in England have to do with GWTW? Nothing. But that was the whole reason for him to attack me about my opinion about Gone with the Wind, so that we'd get to the point where he could disseminate talking points about Muslim rape gangs.

[–] MichaelJPollock (651) 3 years ago

"I meant to stop debating with them as if they had a valid point of view"
***
Fair enough, then why not start debating with them as if they had a fallacious point of view that needs exposing/debunking instead?

"The troll farmer couldn't care less if you start attacking him or arguing why he's wrong"
***
But if you propose a sound counter argument, others, who are not "troll farmers", might read it and agree with it, and see why the troll's rhetoric is wrong. Maybe you can write for these people, not the troll.

"so that every time someone says, "No, you're wrong," he can disseminate a talking point to try to spread the contagion to anyone reading the debate. "
***
Maybe because what needs saying is "No, you're wrong, BECAUSE...(+ sound argument)" (instead of, say, "No you're wrong because you're a [insert most feared smartypants poster archetype name here]").

Sure, it's hard work.

[–] 123Guy (6234) 3 years ago

You've described exactly what the true woke movement is doing. Goes both ways.

[–] moviechatterer (13519) 3 years ago

mostly the other way though
Theres always far more people complaining that (somebody) is offended because they are a "snowflake"
Than actual offended snowflakes
by a huge margin

[–] 123Guy (6234) 3 years ago

yet the one offended snowflake gets huge press, and the millions that don't care, are ignored

example: why does NEARLY* every movie show now, have to have a mixed race couple? (Im not against mixed race couples, this is merely proof of woke) when they are only 15 to 20 percent of the population? 95 percent occupation in shoews and films? Why? gays and trans are about 2-4 % and everyone thinks they have a place in everything? why? woke social contagion

* please note I said "nearly" and not "all". I don't have percentages of this, but vey easy to find them now in NEARLY everything. wokeism maximus: "lets push what WE feel is right, even if it doesn't reflect reality, as seen in percentages facts, not made up numbers." these things are easy to see via the common consumer. so they speak up about it.

[–] MichaelJPollock (651) 3 years ago

But by the same token, films also feature way more murderers or psychopaths than (I hope...) there actually are in the population of the USA (or, since you were talking about couples, more couples of extremely attractive people than one can find in real life). This isn't representative either and very few people seem to complain about it, because it makes for interesting stories.

I don't think art has a duty to be representative of a population's superficial characteristics, as long as it remains somewhat representative of some realms of deeper human experience we can all identify with.

I find the color, gender, sexual orientation (etc.) of a character irrelevant most of the time, and certainly not a hindrance to my identifying with them (even -to some degree- if they're psychopath!) if they're well written and/or the film well shot. But I do get annoyed by films with on-the-nose social/political agendas, and these films usually tend to age and become irrelevant very fast.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

To explain his post, I'd like everyone to look at what I said above, with the most significant point here:

Ironically, one of the most effective means of social contagion is getting people to argue. The reason why is that arguments give the troll farmers opportunities to disseminate talking points.

This thread started out about women being portrayed as more masculine than men. Somehow, several replies later, it's a complaint about mixed race couples and gays and other groups being represented in mainstream media.

This comment is an example of why I warned everyone to not debate people like this--i.e., to simply call them out as engaging in social contagion and drop the subject entirely. Social contagion trolls actually use heated debate as part of their strategy; the more you argue with them, the more opportunities they're given to disseminate talking points. To put it another way, it may seem as if they're legitimately angry with you, but actually they're delighted because every time you counter them, it just gives them a chance to "drop" a talking point.

[–] MichaelJPollock (651) 3 years ago

Maybe you have to accept the possibility that any debate or exchange of ideas will not necessarily go the way you intend it to, and that the arguments you proposed might not be all-purpose.

"to simply call them out as engaging in social contagion and drop the subject entirely"
***
This still isn't debating ideas or explaining why these people you don't agree with are wrong. Sure you'll score points with people who are already "on your side", but you won't convince anyone who isn't already.

[–] 123Guy (6234) 3 years ago

the internet is MOSTLY filled with bad communications based on misreading then misinterpretting discussions and comments. exactly like your response about my response. I was never COMPLAINING about races or gays, just pointing out FACTS about percentages of representations. I'm not going to stress again after this, I don't care, or mind about mixed race couples, or gays. once you know MY perspective on that, it should never factor in to the discussion again, nor be turned into a complaint -- like happens on the internet.

LITERALLY, and as seen in the topic's title, this thread started out explaining social contagion, not women portrayed masculine or whatever. Again, everything online gets skewed, no one cares to correct, notice, rinse, cycle, repeat, ignore.
The internet is good for a discussion for about 1 day, maybe 2, then it wonders off in 60 loosely related directions. Happens all the time, nothing will ever fix it. Unless the net start expiring discussions or deleting after than run their 2 day course.

My entire point is the social contagion pushing to correct "Why aren't there more X in movies" when it never needed correction story wise. Asian movies attract asian audiences, black movies attract black audiences, woman's movies attract womens audiences, white movies attract white audiences. That's not wrong, that's how life is.
We'll never EQUALIZE everything by altering race or sexual preferences characters in movies.

[–] LetoAtreides (475) 3 years ago

Some people see woke and SJW propaganda everywhere.

Some people see racism and sexism everywhere.

[–] Ace_Spade (9390) 2 years ago

Excellent point, LetoAtreides. This woke vs. SJW stuff is certainly a double-edged sword.

[–] Zinger (2183) 3 years ago

..."There's a thing known as "social contagion." Social contagion is the phenomenon of someone or a group of people with a demented point of view, way of life, etc. using media to normalize and spread these views and ways of life onto others, so that people who otherwise are normal start to feel, think and act like them."...

So like when movies promote woke shit?

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

No movie is promoting anything. Social contagion disinformation farmers like you are targeting--and amplifying--specific IPs to push the lie that there's some kind of agenda in mainstream media, which you then use as an excuse to disseminate racist and misogynistic talking points.

[–] 123Guy (6234) 3 years ago

I respect your opinion and perspective, while disagreeing with it.
Look at Charlie's Woke Angels FIRST LINE in the movie:

Charlie's Angels (2019) Script
Home / Movies / Charlie's Angels
"I think women can do anything."

...except make a good movie? EX: Charlie's Angle's, Ghost Busters, WW84, etc etc... :D If you cant see the obvious agendas out there, there is no reason to try to discuss it with you.

I've tried to watch and enjoy many a woke film. MUCH OF THE TIME, the story isn't entertaining to me. Where as I do seem to enjoy other non-woke stories easily, like many others, shown in the box office receipts.

[–] Mephariel (58) 3 years ago

Those are just bad movies. Nothing to do with woke. The Tomorrow War has a white male lead and is absolutely atrocious in storytelling. Having a white male lead has nothing to do with it though.

[–] 123Guy (6234) 3 years ago

welp, I'm a white male, and enjoyed Tomorrow War for the empty headed, action, summer popcorn movie that it was. I didn't relate to the character, although I enjoy the lead actor. Was it because we are white males? I don't even care to think about that. I never think about that. What attracted me was empty headed, action, summer, popcorn, blockbuster, space aliens, splosions movie. That's all. They could have had a female in the lead, and if her acting was fine, I would have enjoyed it equally. I don't care, as long as it entertains.

Linerearly, I really enjoyed the first wonder woman film - directed by a woman, but not all wokey about it. expected the WW84 to be equally as good, it was horrid and I looked into why: written produced and directed by the same woman. Only people I know who thought it was amazing, were some woke feminist who tell me I just didn't understand what it was saying. Really??? It was supposed to say all this woke stuff (according to them) and is totally amazing to them. Yet, it was roundly slammed in nearly all review sites. That is because "mansplaining" and "the patriachy" and some shit. Then, how do they explain the first movie getting way better reivews? And it was a way better movie.

Woke wastes our time.

[–] Zinger (2183) 3 years ago

Oh, that makes sense.

Thank goodness mainstream media don't have the same amount of influence as people like me.

[–] Jehosaphet (1055) 3 years ago

Its also a way of making you seem cued in..."in the know", "nothing gets past me" where they'll find "woke" in every movie they come across as a means of believing they're clever.
I think its just as much about self promotion as it is about an actual cause...these are people who don't think very highly of themselves and this kind of thing is low hanging fruit.

[–] alx9 (72) 3 years ago

Let me guess you have the social contagion called being "woke". Having an ideology is a good thing, having blind ideology like you have, is a bad thing, very bad thing.

Imagine a white boy like the one you describe playing a video game, being told that he is a rapist since he "sub conciously " contributes to rape culture, that his masculinity is toxic, that they owe minorities something simply being white since his parents are immigrants and his generations of family had nothing to do with slavery, that he is not allowed to speak or have thoughts because he is priviledged. Imagine the depraved and senseless abuse being heaped on that boy. You can't because blind ideology. Even worse depraved and malicious blind ideology. If you lived in Afganistan you would be Taliban.

[–] Mephariel (58) 3 years ago

Except this has never happened. White men remains the most successful group of people on the planet across all professions. That is just your social contagion talking.