Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pentagon and CIA shaped thousands of Hollywood movies into effective propaganda

worldbeyondwar.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 577 posts

Re: Pentagon and CIA shaped thousands of Hollywood movies into effective propaganda

#351

Post by boomboomsubban »

worldsayshi wrote: post #281
a_throwaway_8 wrote: post #221

I wonder at which point the US public will have an "are we the baddies" moment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn1VxaMEjRU Harsh, I know. But how long can US people watch the lies in their top-selling films about how heroic their soldiers are, while completely ignoring the atrocities their armies are involved in, around the world?

I'm not American but I feel that at least the general consensus on Reddit is already there. But realising that you're bad doesn't itself form a solution. You need some kind of consensus about a plan towards becoming better and that hasn't begun to form.

It's nowhere near a general consensus. There's a minority that think so, a minority ultra patriotic, and most people basically never think about such foreign policy. Except when they watch movies or TV shows, which is what makes the propaganda so troubling.

Re: Pentagon and CIA shaped thousands of Hollywood movies into effective propaganda

#352

Post by throwawaylinux »

notahacker wrote: post #317
throwawaylinux wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

> Direct opposite of what? Hollywood films allegedly being "woke propaganda", which was the claim which started this "what do you mean by woke?" subthread. Films which glorify guns are categorically not examples of Hollywood anti-gun propaganda; if they are any sort of propaganda at all, as opposed to just stuff that sells , they are clearly very non-'woke' pro-gun propaganda. > I don't think it's necessarily an exam…

No post body was provided.

Re: Pentagon and CIA shaped thousands of Hollywood movies into effective propaganda

#353

Post by wolverine876 »

implements wrote: post #304
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I asked because whenever I hear about someone complaining of “wokeism” they’re complaining about things that I think are good. Giving black actors roles in areas normally dominated by white actors? That’s awesome! But whenever this happens loads of people online will claim that is “wokeism”. Representation for gay, lesbian, queer, and trans people in media? Wow that’s great! Many complain this is “wokeism”. Recognizi…

> Recognizing that trans women are women and trans men are men? 100% that’s the bare minimum and I am happy to see it. If women are a group historically discriminated against by virtue of their sex (female, different physicality, different reproductive role) rather than by their gender (feminine, caring, pretty, submissive, domestic, …) then is the fusing of sex and gender truly progressive? Is it medically, scientif…

> If women are a group historically discriminated against by virtue of their sex (female, different physicality, different reproductive role) rather than by their gender (feminine, caring, pretty, submissive, domestic, …)

Are they? And is that the definition of gender? submissive?! It's hard to think of someone I know now, who identifies as female, who fits your definition.

And if true, what does some historical discrimination have to do with someone's personal belief of themselves? If I think I'm non-binary, does the historical reason for discrimination against women change me somehow?

And who are you or I to tell someone else what their identity is? That just seems bizarre to me.

> postmodernist

Ironically, most people criticizing post-moderinism are using it as the mechanism of their critique - which is especially post-modernist!

Re: Pentagon and CIA shaped thousands of Hollywood movies into effective propaganda

#354

Post by musingsole »

boppo1 wrote: post #274
UweSchmidt wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There might have been some improvements in this area but I still haven't seen any (male) IT guy in a movie who is not portrayed as some kind of weirdo and relegated to the side. Even female nerds are at the very best assisting the hero. TV lawyers and doctors however get to hold jargon-filled monologues and be in lead roles. /rant

> (male) IT guy in a movie Who is tony stark?

Mysterio et al from "Spider-Man: Far From Home" is closer to lionizing IT folk while lambasting Tony Stark.

Re: Pentagon and CIA shaped thousands of Hollywood movies into effective propaganda

#355

Post by shkkmo »

tauntz wrote: post #312
throwawaylinux wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see what urban dictionary entries lead you to believe you are on the right track, but the top voted 2-3 do not. Those are what it means: hypocrisy and insincerity about progressive causes.

Might be a language thing then. I'm reading through Urban Dictionary and most of them read to me like "I think I know the other person is dishonest or stupid". Let's take the most popular definition there: Woke - The act of being very pretentious about how much you care about a social issue Again, as a non-native English speaker I have to click through "pretentious". The most popular definition: Behaving in an attent…

Be careful about trusting Urban Dictionary too much. It can serve has a useful hint about what some slang means, but is often heavily biased towards the slang used by certain demographics and subcultures (and is vulnerable to brigading). It certainly is not a source of the "one true meaning" of a word.

I am sure your language does have a word that is pretty similar to "pretentious" though it may not have all of the conotations. I recommend a real dictionary that has multiple good definitions or a good cross-language dictionary that can give you several alternate words in your language that map to the various uses of "pretentious".

"Woke" is even more complicated. It is a word that originated over half a century ago in African American culture as part of the civil rights movement. It meant being aware of and working to fight racial injustice. It was then coopted a decade ago by progressive people working on a broader range of social justice issues to describe awareness of those issues. It was then further co-opted by conservative people to mock progressive people as pretentious.

The poster is trying to pretend that only this last meaning is real and valid. They are either ignorant or a racist troll working to further the co-opting of the term.

Re: Pentagon and CIA shaped thousands of Hollywood movies into effective propaganda

#356

Post by wolverine876 »

refurb wrote: post #323
gnmla wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Quoted post unavailable.

> When the space adventure story includes a massive subplot about a non-white characters search for identity in an unjust world that oppressed them, you suddenly wonder if the bought the wrong ticket.

Why is that verboten? Why is it different than any other subplot of a personal challenge? It's a common part of real life.

Re: Pentagon and CIA shaped thousands of Hollywood movies into effective propaganda

#357

Post by lenkite »

PaulAJ wrote: post #70
prmoustache wrote: post #20

I cringe every time I hear the US president being described as the leader of the free world, as if there were 2 specific sides and USA were leading it and as if USA was an advocate for freedom.

Up until 1990 that was a reasonable approximation to the truth. The USA certainly had its issues, but in a comparison between the USA and the USSR there was no question about who the relatively good guys were. Since the USSR collapsed, and especially since 9/11, things have gotten a lot murkier.

You are clearly American. American administrations preferred and supported third-world tyrants during the Cold War over functional democracies since the former could be easily controlled. This is extensively documented and even admitted by several ex-DC head honchos.

Public messaging by POTUS for national consumption is very different from actions on the ground.

Re: Pentagon and CIA shaped thousands of Hollywood movies into effective propaganda

#358

Post by jimmont »

And what's wrong with that? Films typically fit amusement generally, or "a-" not and "muse" to think. Finding quality content it like opening a mineral mine and doing the operation manually, less like attending a film or reading HN. The nuggets of value are expensive to uncover.

Re: Pentagon and CIA shaped thousands of Hollywood movies into effective propaganda

#359

Post by hirako2000 »

tauntz wrote: post #312
throwawaylinux wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see what urban dictionary entries lead you to believe you are on the right track, but the top voted 2-3 do not. Those are what it means: hypocrisy and insincerity about progressive causes.

Might be a language thing then. I'm reading through Urban Dictionary and most of them read to me like "I think I know the other person is dishonest or stupid". Let's take the most popular definition there: Woke - The act of being very pretentious about how much you care about a social issue Again, as a non-native English speaker I have to click through "pretentious". The most popular definition: Behaving in an attent…

Some further insight if I may. The urban dictionary definitions provide some of the current interpretation. And one interpretation is that the woke movement is pretentious.

You could argue that accusing a target of being pretentious is being pretentious, except that it may be a fact. So we have to keep digging, a quest for the truth rather than just adopting one of the existing interpretations.

Also to note, being pretentious doesn't imply conscious act. Like arrogance, the subject isn't necessarily aware, although it may be.

Are woke supporters pretentious? Either way, let's accept some may well be, and if so, it wouldn't be reasonable to dismiss anyone calling that out as pretentious. Not dismissing the fact some of the wokes opponents may well be the ones being pretentious, or as pretentious as the woke. In any case it has become a sided political clash, we will only settle to a predominant interpretation on this matter once fight is over.

Re: Pentagon and CIA shaped thousands of Hollywood movies into effective propaganda

#360

Post by Levitz »

4ggr0 wrote: post #295
janeroe wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That billions of equipment and resources provided by the woke cabala? Hundreds of millions are spent worldwide on endowments for universities to push this specific agenda. So, yes, I wouldn't find it surprising if the movie makers are sponsored, too. Now, it's clear why US army would want a positive optics. But who's to benefit from, say, Tajiks internalizing the "oppression scale"?

What exactly does this woke agenda push, if I may ask?

Hard to answer, you might as well ask "what exactly does this not very defined group want?".

Let's take feminism for example, which is generally considered as pertaining to woke culture, what do feminists want? Well you have sex-positive feminists, sex-negative feminists, you've got the ones that want to legalize sex work, the ones who don't, abortion at every stage no matter the circumstance, abortion in hospitals depending on term, trans inclusive, trans exclusive, men inclusive, men exclusive, men-can-only-be-allies... And I'm not even mentioning different waves of feminism.

It's hard to nail down what it pushes, exactly, but I'd say that a focus on identity politics as opposed to economic issues is a constant. A character existing solely because of their identity, disregarding if it adds anything is, I'd say, peak wokeism.

And I've no doubt many will disagree with that, as some others will with any other take.

Post reply on HN