361–370 of 577 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, Russia had pushed Germany the whole way back into Berlin by 1945. Russia defeated Germany in Europe in WW2 the other allied powers basically showed up when it was all over.
Too bad that Russia (and most importantly its army) stayed in this area for nearly the next 50 years.
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…
Calling someone woke is discrediting the other person. Its like a signal to other people (especially the people who also often use this word), 'this person is politically aligned with X, this person cannot be right'. Its an insult, but so is the term 'wappie' (used in The Netherlands for people 'who don't believe in corona'). Faggot (when not in UK referring to gay person), nazi (when the person clearly isn't). These are all examples of insulting terms. They're polarizing. Even calling someone a communist when they clearly aren't is insulting, because communism is historically related to dictatorial regimes as well as purges (Stalinism comes to mind).
If they call themselves a communist (or a liberal, or a conservative, a nazi, woke, or whatever), fair game. But calling someone else that way when they did not identify with such is uncalled for. Because you put them on a political spectrum, with all kind of strings and assumptions attached to it.
Now, interestingly, calling someone a nazi or a faggot gets you downvoted or banned on most forums, but with a term like woke people still get away with. Not sure why.
According to Google Translate, pretentious translates to pretensioonikas in Estonian as the most popular translation, so it seems like it got borrowed from English (not implying it originates from English, I don't know about the etymology).
[1] $ dict pretentious
3 definitions found
From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]:
Pretentious \Pre*ten"tious\, a. [Cf. F. pr['e]tentieux. See
{Pretend}.]
Full of pretension; disposed to lay claim to more than is
one's; presuming; assuming. -- {Pre*ten"tious*ly}, adv. --
{Pre*ten"tious*ness}, n.
[1913 Webster]
pretentious
adj 1: making claim to or creating an appearance of (often
undeserved) importance or distinction; "a pretentious
country house"; "a pretentious fraud"; "a pretentious
scholarly edition" [ant: {unpretentious}]
2: intended to attract notice and impress others; "an
ostentatious sable coat" [syn: {ostentatious}, {pretentious}]
[ant: {unostentatious}, {unpretending}, {unpretentious}]
3: (of a display) tawdry or vulgar [syn: {ostentatious},
{pretentious}]
[...]
At the moment there seem to be many more (or at least many) 'anti' government movies around - those portraying the CIA and other organisations as corrupt, self serving or incompetent - the Bourne series etc. Even "Eye in the Sky" gave me an overwhelming sense that the military use of drones was poorly managed and the decision making process was incompetent.
>the Bourne series The series where the protagonist is a CIA super agent who throws away his career because his morals get in the way. You may not leave with the impression that all of the CIA are moral, but it does spread the idea that the CIA is incredibly capable and individuals can sway overall policy. Which is nonsense.
That’s hardly in dispute, is it?
> and individuals can sway overall policy
Certainly not the impression I got from at least the first three films. The Bourne Identity ends in an unceremonious coverup of a failed operation, and the sole “idealist” character in the next two films torches her career as well to go to the press. Which depending on your view could be considered exactly what Snowden did, for better or for worse.
Certainly typical tropey US spy movie fare (American characters playing CIA assassination games in Europe, etc.), but more revisionist Western than John Wayne.
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…
Quoted post unavailable.
I think if you look at overall black representation among actors, you will see it was very low. If you look for some in your memory, you will find them of course.
Even now, almost everything is led by a white person. Even in animation, almost everyone is white. Or look at sci-fi movies, where there are often as many or more alien species as non-white humans.
> The woke with their CRT and racial segregation policies (telling children that race really matters a lot) have ruined everything.
What is being told the children by whom? What does CRT say? If you dispute that race has a large (though certainly undesireable) impact on life, you are living in a sci-fi fantasy.
> ruined everything
I think it has, or threatens to, burst many bubbles, which 'ruins' many fantasies. Just talk to people with actual experience of it, such as black people, and you will find out just how isolated we have been from reality. Most white people don't do that because they don't have many black people in their personal network, which should be a signal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but in a comparison between the USA and the USSR That's a false dichotomy if I ever seen one.
It's literally a dichotomy by definition. If I say "in a comparison between chocolate and vanilla" I'm literally comparing those two specific flavors. To tell me it's a false dichotomy is silly.
There's a reason why "I'm not as bad as " is not an acceptable legal defense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure. But I don't run around daily acting like I have a moral high ground and constantly baiting people. I took your bait, and I'm the bad guy? Okay bud. Maybe try not being so angry about stuff that literally doesn't matter. You're constantly enraged on here. I'm not here often and if I can tie your screen name to rage inducing you're doing something horribly wrong with your life.
Why are you calling me these names? Who am I calling up hate or rage against? I answered a question about the definition of the word as it was being used. Obviously the definition is making you very angry, but I'm just the messenger here I did not make the post that used the word in the first place, and I didn't make up the definition.
one graphic that stuck with me, that I saw a few years ago is this one ( https://imgur.com/svsB0Ub ) (question being: which nation, according to you, contributed most to the defeat of Germany?" Being German and having Russian relatives the perspective on the war on the continent has always been interesting to me. The sheer scale and brutality of the Eastern front, the war crimes and death (The Soviet Union lost more…
I am a French citizen 65 year old. I remember that my father was bombed by US in Rennes (luckily he went out safe). Most ports on Atlantic coast were completely destroyed by US bombers and many towns (Lorient, Saint-Malo, Brest, etc) had to be completely rebuilt. Many people were displaced, homeless and had to be relocated in shelters. This lasted until the 60", see [0] Yet now, for French people and media, destructi…
For you though, the Nazis invaded and occupied France, taking over the ports. The US bombs them to stop their takeover of France... and it's the US you blame?
If your house catches fire and you call the fire department to put it out, do you then blame the fire department for the water damage caused while putting it out?
That seems like a ridiculous claim. Carol Danvers was an Air Force officer when the character was created in 1968. No one was trying to sell the Air Force to women in 1968.
Marvel, both the comics and the movies, has been more anti-military than pro-military. The military, specifically the US military, is often the bad guys.
For example, it was the military that led to the creation of the Hulk, and are generally the bad guys in both the comics and movies when it comes to things related to Hulk.
If in a Marvel work the military shows up, it is almost a cliche that they are going to be the bad guys unless it is a military vs. military situation such as with Captain America. And even the first Captain America movie didn't portray the US military all that favorably--they create the first super soldier and then just want to use him as an entertainer!
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…
Quoted post unavailable.
If you look at who is hired and admitted, that discrimination isn't accomplishing much!
Also, discrimination is about power; in its significant meaning, it requires power. If the owner of a tiny restuarant discriminates against you because you are a white male person, it is obnoxious but that is all the damage; you are safe, just go someplace else. If the government or the powerful majority discriminates against you, brutalizing you, arresting you, denying you work, etc. then it is very serious and damages your life and safety.
What changes - occasionally, in some places - is that white people and males no longer benefit from an affirmative action program that favors them - a ridiculous situation for the most powerful group in society. Look at sports as a simple example: Until the late 1940s, Major League Baseball only employed white players - it was a massive affirmative action program for white guys, who would not otherwise get the jobs. There was a great uproar, including among players, when they lost just a little of the privilege (the first year, in all of baseball, there were 1-2 non-white players. It took decades before the white guy affirmative action program disappeared.)
Once this was pointed out, I can't unsee it. It's kind of ruined movies that involves the military or military equipment for me, since it can be really obvious when creators toe the line for the military. When I see military equipment my gut reaction is to anticipate the other shoe dropping, and to look for shoehorned hero worship or some good-versus-evil plot point.
I think Hollywood is lot less subtle now at trying to push political propaganda than it was ever then, except that wokeism is the theme of the day. In some instances it has completely taken over the plot, like in the last season of Fargo, to the point of becoming some sort of unwatcheable catechism.