Live data from Hacker News

Pentagon and CIA shaped thousands of Hollywood movies into effective propaganda

worldbeyondwar.org

541–550 of 577 posts

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

#541
post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what woke means though. You don't let trolls dictate what you understand of any other words, do you? Woke in this context means insincere and/or hypocritical support of liberal causes, as wikipedia and urban dictionary clearly list as definitions.

> as wikipedia and urban dictionary clearly list as definitions. Wikipedia absolutely does not list it as a hypocritical or insincere thing. Wikipedia defines it as "alert to perceived racial prejudice and discrimination" The Wikipedia definition you quote funnily enough is the one I described, "Opponents of progressive social movements often use the term mockingly or sarcastically, implying that 'wokeness' is an ins…

> Wikipedia absolutely does not list it as a hypocritical or insincere thing. Wikipedia defines it as "alert to perceived racial prejudice and discrimination"

Wikipedia absolutely does.

"using the term woke, often in an ironic way, as an insult for various progressive or leftist movements and ideologies perceived as over-zealous, performative, or insincere."

Which is basically what the top urban dictionary results say. I use that because it reacts a bit faster to contemporary usage. And it's obvious that is the definition was being used here.

> And another thing - Urban Dictionary can certainly be used to get to know what online slang, memes mean. Using it as an official definition for a word is a bit wrong though, seeing as how UD is more about tongue-in-cheek joke definitions.

That's not how English works, there is no "official" definition except how people use words. Dictionaries, whether Urban or Oxford, record their observations about the language, they do not define it. Woke is widely used exactly as urbandictionary and the quoted part of the wikipedia page say.

Don't take this in a rude way, but I'm frankly flabbergasted that people have such a difficult time comprehending this usage of the word. I suspect a lot of it is insincere, and all of it stems from not liking the definition or the people or comments that tend to use the word.

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

#542
post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm holding out for a Breaking Bad style show about a software consultant who realizes how much money they can make by pivoting to running a malware ransom ring

As others have suggested, Mr. Robot isn't quite this but it's close, and extremely well made. One of the best TV shows ever in my opinion.

Love Mr. Robot, but Elliot is a social/political actor.

I’m looking for a Walter White money fiend

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

#543
post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as wikipedia and urban dictionary clearly list as definitions. Wikipedia absolutely does not list it as a hypocritical or insincere thing. Wikipedia defines it as "alert to perceived racial prejudice and discrimination" The Wikipedia definition you quote funnily enough is the one I described, "Opponents of progressive social movements often use the term mockingly or sarcastically, implying that 'wokeness' is an ins…

> Wikipedia absolutely does not list it as a hypocritical or insincere thing. Wikipedia defines it as "alert to perceived racial prejudice and discrimination" Wikipedia absolutely does. "using the term woke, often in an ironic way, as an insult for various progressive or leftist movements and ideologies perceived as over-zealous, performative, or insincere." Which is basically what the top urban dictionary results sa…

> Wikipedia absolutely does.

Well, yes, I wrote myself that Wikipedia quotes it as a negative thing, but in the chapter where they list examples of people using it wrongly. The official definition they write in the beginning of the article is not negative. The section we're both quoting from is literally called "Woke as a pejorative term".

> I'm frankly flabbergasted that people have such a difficult time comprehending this usage of the word

I know how people (mis)use the word. There's the original and official meanings,

- "aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues" - Merriam Webster

- "alert to perceived racial prejudice and discrimination" - Wikipedia

Then there's people who use woke as an insult and changing the meaning of the word completely, the definitions we now both talked about and can be found on UD and on Wikipedia, and I'm repeating myself here, but in the section where they list the pejorative(!) usages.

One other funny detail of using UD as official definition is that it has 60 pages filled with different interpretations.

Even funnier to me is that the 6th most upvoted definition is a quote by Paul Joseph Watson, a far-right conspiracy theorist.

I still don't understand why you pretend like I don't know the different meanings of woke. I was complaining about people using the word woke to just complain about anything left from them they don't like, which is as embarrassing and childish as people on the left labeling everyone they don't like as a fascist and thus also completely misusing a pretty well-defined word.

But it seems to me that this is exactly the strategy of someone like Paul Joseph Watson. Taking a word which is used positively by people he doesn't like, start to use it negatively while hoping that this trend catches on until the word has the opposite meaning of what it once meant, while at the same time discrediting people who used it in a positive way.

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

#544
post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wikipedia absolutely does not list it as a hypocritical or insincere thing. Wikipedia defines it as "alert to perceived racial prejudice and discrimination" Wikipedia absolutely does. "using the term woke, often in an ironic way, as an insult for various progressive or leftist movements and ideologies perceived as over-zealous, performative, or insincere." Which is basically what the top urban dictionary results sa…

> Wikipedia absolutely does. Well, yes, I wrote myself that Wikipedia quotes it as a negative thing, but in the chapter where they list examples of people using it wrongly. The official definition they write in the beginning of the article is not negative. The section we're both quoting from is literally called "Woke as a pejorative term". > I'm frankly flabbergasted that people have such a difficult time comprehendi…

The net of it is "woke" has a definition that is basically insincerity and/or hypocrisy about support for liberal causes, that definition is explained very plainly in both wikipedia and urban dictionary if people actually care to find out, and it was clearly the one that was used by the original poster who used the word.

And probably everybody in this thread knew all that full well from the start.

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

#545
post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wikipedia absolutely does. Well, yes, I wrote myself that Wikipedia quotes it as a negative thing, but in the chapter where they list examples of people using it wrongly. The official definition they write in the beginning of the article is not negative. The section we're both quoting from is literally called "Woke as a pejorative term". > I'm frankly flabbergasted that people have such a difficult time comprehendi…

The net of it is "woke" has a definition that is basically insincerity and/or hypocrisy about support for liberal causes, that definition is explained very plainly in both wikipedia and urban dictionary if people actually care to find out, and it was clearly the one that was used by the original poster who used the word. And probably everybody in this thread knew all that full well from the start.

I am not saying that these definitions don't exist, I am confused why that relates at all to what I said in my original comment.

All I said was that it's a red flag for me when people use the word woke to slander anything politically left they don't like. When they once used "marxist", "communist", "liberal" and other words to just quickly dismiss things they simply don't like (without these things relating at all to the word they're using), now it seems to be "woke".

Basically, woke started out as a way to say that someone is aware of social issues. You seem to like to talk about what Wikipedia has to say about this word, so let me summarize,

In the 1930, woke was first being used as "referring to an awareness of the social and political issues affecting African Americans". In 2014 the meaning slightly transformed to "raise awareness about police shootings of African Americans" and in 2017 it was added to the Oxford English Dictionary where they (still) define it as "alert to racial or social discrimination and injustice".

Only then, in 2020, did it change. "parts of the political center and right wing in several Western countries were using the term woke, often in an ironic way, as an insult for various progressive or leftist movements and ideologies"

People certainly used woke negatively before 2020, but pretending like this is 100% the meaning of it is just a lie. Is it negative in the context of this comment chain here? Yes, of course, but your statements about "'woke' has a definition that is basically insincerity and/or hypocrisy" are not true. It's one of the definitions some people use, but it is not "the" definition of the word.

Yes, today this word has a pretty negative meaning, but that's because right-wing reactionary trolls started to purposefully misuse it to put this word in a bad light. It was used in a positive way for almost 90 years apparently, and I first heard it being used in a positive way on TikTok and other social media platforms.

I don't even know why I am writing so much about this freaking word, and I still don't know how any of this relates to my original comment ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

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

#546
post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hidden secret is the life - the oppressive discrimination - many minorities, especially black persons, have been experiencing for generations, without most white people being aware of it. When you take that red pill, when you are open to the facts, it is shocking what has been happening right under our noses. You can't unsee it. A simple suggestion: Just talk about it with people who are black; if you don't know…

I first read it as in “stay woke”, a reminder that your survival depends on seeing through people’s bullshit. And the most harmful bullshit is that racism is a personal failing rather than a system working as designed; designed by people who will not peacefully let it go.

> the most harmful bullshit is that racism is a personal failing rather than a system working as designed; designed by people who will not peacefully let it go.

Yes, an essential point. But it's also a personal choice.

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

#547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Woke” has quickly gone the way of “liberal” and become an insult. It was a stupid word anyway so I don’t mind if it just goes away.

I pity people who use "woke" as an insult.

It’s been a very long time since I have heard somebody use this word in a positive context.

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

#548
post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hidden secret is the life - the oppressive discrimination - many minorities, especially black persons, have been experiencing for generations, without most white people being aware of it. When you take that red pill, when you are open to the facts, it is shocking what has been happening right under our noses. You can't unsee it. A simple suggestion: Just talk about it with people who are black; if you don't know…

> I think you are talking about the reactionaries' use of the word That's a fair point, yeah. > When you take that red pill, when you are open to the facts, it is shocking what has been happening right under our noses I think the problem there for me personally is, that "being red-pilled" was kinda adopted by the right wing, so I would never label myself red-pilled when I learn what kinds of things black people exper…

> So essentially, red-pilled means "I learned(or at least think so) something which the mainstream(god I hate that word in the political context) does not know."

I think the definition is narrower. I think it's something that completely shifts your persecptive, that is relvelatory. I know things about certain policy issues that the mainstream doesn't - or about IT, but it's not the same.

> if what you think you've learned is objectively true, then you were red-pilled, if it's objectively wrong you just invented a new conspiracy theory.

This is the nature of all knowledge - there is no way around thinking critically, using all the skills (empiricism, post-modernism, etc.); it's never easy.

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

#549

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For all the feigning of ignorance, 'woke' is well entrenched in in mainstream language now. I can't speak for the other person, but the term is so loaded that it's lost meaning, and it seems important to define your meaning if we are going to talk about it. I agree that it's a bit disingenous to just ask for a definition rather than say, 'that term is so loaded; what do you mean by it?'

It hasn't lost meaning at all, it's just that some people don't like the meaning so they misrepresent it or pretend not to know what it is. It basically means hypocrisy and/or insincerity toward popular progressive causes. That's the meaning. There's also an older one which has mostly been displaced as far as I'm aware, but if it's still used it also has a pretty well defined meaning. In context, at least in this con…

> It basically means hypocrisy and/or insincerity toward popular progressive causes.

A bizarre claim only made by people who attack progressives.

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

#550
post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

> In the 1990s there were loads of superstar Black actors. 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.…

>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.

If not "almost everything [was] led by a white person" it would be an under or over representation of multiple races, at least if it is supposed to be a "representation" of the western world*. You can google "us race demographics" and it will conveniently bring up a table showing 76.3% white and 13.4% black. I think some people forget that a motely crew of exactly one of every race is someone's utopian ideal with no basis in reality. And it's not hard to extend that idea to any arbitrary subset of humans in almost any context.

*The entire world isn't any "better": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_world

Edit: googled "actor demographics":

There are over 19,730 Actors currently employed in the United States. 32.1% of all Actors are women, while 63.9% are men. The average age of an employed Actor is 37 years old. The most common ethnicity of Actors is White (59.5%), followed by Hispanic or Latino (15.6%) and Black or African American (13.9%).

If someone's personal experience with actor demographics doesn't reflect that, its most likely because what they typically watch doesn't reflect it and not because of a systemic imbalance.

Post reply on HN