No post body was provided.
Pentagon and CIA shaped thousands of Hollywood movies into effective propaganda
551–560 of 577 posts
Re: Pentagon and CIA shaped thousands of Hollywood movies into effective propaganda
#552Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
You did say that the definitions did not exist (e.g., above when you denied wikipedia had such a definition). But in any case I don't know what your initial post had to do with what was being discussed. I don't jump into any thread to post about how one or other extremist group uses some word. If you are going to accuse the original poster as being a racist or extremist or something then just come out with it. And if not, then you didn't add anything. Extremists misuse words, more news at 11.
Re: Pentagon and CIA shaped thousands of Hollywood movies into effective propaganda
#553Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
What is the bizzare claim?
Re: Pentagon and CIA shaped thousands of Hollywood movies into effective propaganda
#554Re: Pentagon and CIA shaped thousands of Hollywood movies into effective propaganda
#555[deleted]
Re: Pentagon and CIA shaped thousands of Hollywood movies into effective propaganda
#556Earlier quoted context omitted.
What was bad about it? The idea was to make overland transport through Cambodian territory (which U.S. did not want to outright invade) to supply Vietcong as difficult as possible. Vietnam war may have been brutal, and eventually lost, but it disincentivised everyone else in the Southeast Asia from turning to Communism, so in the end it was a net benefit for the free world.
Oh yes, the Cambodia that didn't turn communist in the 70s and execute millions of people for wearing glasses? Totally disincentivized.
Which means, Cambodia never became a Soviet asset or was in any way beneficial to the Soviet Union (and this was the main goal of the Vietnam war: to prevent Soviet assets from appearing in the Southeast Asia). Pot Pot's regime was even a detriment to the Soviets as it tainted the 'good name' of Communism in the eyes of Western intellectuals.
Re: Pentagon and CIA shaped thousands of Hollywood movies into effective propaganda
#557Earlier quoted context omitted.
> USA is an advocate of very specific stability. "Free world" is a hyperbolic but US is still a huge global power. > In cold war it was obvious there were two sides, and the other was obviously more free than the other. Go ask for example Estonians, Lithuanians or Latvians who they enjoyed the yoke of the USSR. You could also ask a Guatemalan how they enjoyed living under the US installed military dictatorships (whic…
Not only Guatemala, but essentially all Latin America. I don't think a country can honestly claim to lead the "free world" while exporting brutal dictatorships to a entire continent.
the middle east agrees
Re: Pentagon and CIA shaped thousands of Hollywood movies into effective propaganda
#558Earlier quoted context omitted.
USA is an advocate of very specific stability. "Free world" is a hyperbolic but US is still a huge global power. In cold war it was obvious there were two sides, and the other was obviously more free than the other. Go ask for example Estonians, Lithuanians or Latvians who they enjoyed the yoke of the USSR. Now, as China is becoming an ever more stronger player, we again see that there are two sides arising. While pa…
>In cold war it was obvious there were two sides Um, no. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Aligned_Movement
The article is pretty obvious about the fact that the "Non-Aligned" movement was in fact closely aligned with USSR
"many of the Non-Aligned Movement's members were actually quite closely aligned with China or the Soviet Union"
Re: Pentagon and CIA shaped thousands of Hollywood movies into effective propaganda
#559In France, the french secret services (DGSE) worked hand-in-hand with the production of a TV show called The Bureau ( https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4063800 ). The services were supposedly lacking diverse resources for both operators, admins and field agents of diverse backgrounds. This series drew a very strong, credible and positive narrative that led to a massive number of people knocking at the doors of the DGSE to…
“Propaganda” is an early 20th century term that eventually got turned into “public relations”. So yes, it is definitely, 100% propaganda.
Rebranding "propaganda" into "PR" was, in and of itself, quite an impressive work of propaganda.
Re: Pentagon and CIA shaped thousands of Hollywood movies into effective propaganda
#560Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been thinking about this and it happens I do have an answer. Wokeism is in part an ideology and a set of political goals, but it is also a means of competition. It is the foundation for a system of verbal duelling that determines who gets the limited number of spots at the top of our hierarchy. Like the Edwardian's preoccupation with gossip and scandal or the Aztec's ritual sacrifice of losing ullamaliztli playe…
This is pretty interesting but I don't think the evidence is very strong. Being the leader of the Canadian Green Party is not "elite". Green parties around the world are going through these upheavals only because they allowed and encouraged this wokeism, that's what they want and that's what they get. Whereas look at the actual positions of political power. Biden/Harris -- they're both horrific in many wokeness metri…
I think the disagreement here is mostly about the meaning of the word 'Elite'. The way I use it I'm thinking more of the most influential 10% than 1%. People who have it better than most citizens, but their position is precarious. So more the democratic party insiders Biden/Harris bullied into tilting the odds against Sanders/Yang/Gabbard than just Biden/Harris themselves. Of course, my theory does require that Biden/Harris spent a long time in the trenches honing their skills in this kind of dominance struggle. If you don't think they thrived in that environment for so long through being better at earlier versions of woke competition I'd be curious what you think the selection mechanism was. Another thing you might not have noticed about Woke Competition is that it's not about being a perfect person or having no skeletons in your closet. One of the presuppositions is that we all have something undeserving about us and need to keep that fact constantly in mind.
I disagree with the idea that even the kind of elites you mean aren't affected though, and I'd point to the example of Andrew Cuomo for evidence. It's very plausible that Andrew Cuomo's calls in the early days of covid cost a number of people their lives, that's all the reason any party would need to remove a prominent member. But when he was removed it was through a set of sexual assault allegations that someone had clearly been sitting on for some time. When infighting did erupt, woke competition was the weapon of choice.
As for my last paragraph, that was in small part assertive optimism, in large part a rhetorical device, and just a touch of sarcasm. People like you after all don't need convincing there's a problem with woke competition, it was addressed to people who buy into it. That woke competition is only intended to divide the underclasses can be easily dismissed as the author hiding from his racial privilege, that it has that effect unintentionally because of unconscious privilege by the rich... the rules of the game practically require believing that.