WokeWatch™

[Commtech Sio Bibble 2,052]

4 hours ago, An Fear Beag said:

I'm not sure that I see what the problem is with giving the role of Juliet to a black woman, provided she is a good enough actress for the role. It is a fair while since I read or saw the play, but I don't recall anything in it that would make it essential that she is white. Juliet is a fictional part - she can be anything you want her to be. It's just that people are so used to seeing her played by white actresses that they cannot imagine her as anything else. You could argue that it is based in Italy, and therefore Juliet would not have been black (had she existed!). But I don't think she would have looked like Claire Danes either, and people seemed to accept that okay.

Arguing over race in Shakespeare is just idiocy (not you, you're more or less spot on here). When the plays were written, Juliet (like all female roles) would have been played by a man, so if in its original context the gender of the actor doesn't matter in performing the play, then in the 21st century the race of the actor really shouldn't matter.

[Sinbabad 1,124]

5 minutes ago, Commtech Sio Bibble said:

 in the 21st century the race really shouldn't matter.

But unfortunately it does matter to the wokists. They want more black or asian actors where their only concern should be that the actor is talented.

It is perfectly normal to me that there is less black actors than white because they are a minority in the general population in the USA, GB and France…

That’s the same for colleges, Ivy League schools, executive jobs etc…

Like I said I’m for meritocracy not affirmative action.

For example in the France national football team there is a lot of black players. But they were chosen thanks to their talent, and thanks to them we won the 2018 WC. But if someone said "I wish there were more white players" he’d be branded as racist and that’d be fair.

 

Also what I hate about wokism is the cancel culture and those who judge historical figures with nowadays criterias.

[TQR 14,399]

3 minutes ago, Sinbabad said:

But unfortunately it does matter to the wokists. They want more black or asian actors where their only concern should be that the actor is talented.

It is perfectly normal to me that there is less black actors than white because they are a minority in the general population in the USA, GB and France…

That’s the same for colleges, Ivy League schools, executive jobs etc…

Like I said I’m for meritocracy not affirmative action.

For example in the France national football team there is a lot of black players. But they were chosen thanks to their talent, and thanks to them we won the 2018 WC. But if someone said "I wish there were more white players" he’d be branded as racist and that’d be fair.

 

Also what I hate about wokism is the cancel culture and those who judge historical figures with nowadays criterias.

 

Do you also hate margarine, the BBC, Henry VIII's disability and the McDonald's uniform?

[The Old Crem 3,606]

43 minutes ago, Commtech Sio Bibble said:

I've been asked this before and the conclusion I came to then was, unless race is intrinsic to the character's identity, the race of the actor playing them shouldn't matter just get a good actor. Mandela or MLK or Hitler etc need to be played be people of the same race whereas (to take an example from a few years ago) Anne Boleyn can be portrayed as any race as her race is not relevant to story. There's a massive difference between a Morgan Freeman playing Thomas Edison and Michael Caine playing Fredrick Douglas. The same principle applies to gender. The only caveat I would add is that you would maybe want to make sure that the audience understands that what they're watching is fiction so that they don't come away thinking the wrong thing, but then again thinking that Stan Lee was Indian or Oprah was white doesn't really effect how you view them (unless you're racist, but at that point who gives a shit).

I think it works better on the stage. You can be more fantasy in storytelling. In film and TV colour blind casting is more noticeable.
 

The black Anne Boleyn drama got terrible ratings on TV and I suspect the casting played a big part as it would have put of many of the core audience for a historical drama, 
 

I awe the Sound of Music last year and a couple of the Von Trapp kids were non white which does stretch realoty plus some of the Nazi’s were non white as well - the later is starting to rewrite history,  

[En Passant 3,741]

1 minute ago, TQR said:

 

Do you also hate margarine, the BBC, Henry VIII's disability and the McDonald's uniform?

 

 With a passion.

 

As for acting, well, it's acting ffs. The idea that a gay can't play straight or vice versa is bonkers.

[TQR 14,399]

Oh, and...

 

FURY as Team GB's Union Jack goes woke! GRRRRR, flags.

 

[En Passant 3,741]

1 minute ago, TQR said:

GRRRRR, flags.

 

Fucks me right off. It's a flag, get a grip.

 

 Fuckin symbolism, fuckin political jumping on a populist bandwagon, fuckin nationalism if you like - people are people whatever nation.

I think Gordon Sumner (sting) and his 14 hour tantric sex marathons is a loony but he got one thing right - (he hopes) "the russians love their children too".

[TQR 14,399]

11 hours ago, An Fear Beag said:

I think that for the benefit of us middle aged folk who are confused about the whole "woke" world that we seem to live in,  it might be useful to have an easy reference list of "THINGS THAT ARE WOKE".

 

Have added this to the OP and will continuously update, cheers. If anyone else sees any wokery being reported, bring it here. Stay angry. Stay anti-woke.

[Commtech Sio Bibble 2,052]

1 minute ago, Sinbabad said:

I’m for meritocracy not affirmative action.

 

A meritocracy is great and I don't think people should be given things for free but the problem is in a lot of western countries historically (but still in living memory) non-white ethnic groups have been segregated and whilst this isn't the case today the long lasting effects of segregation are still being felt. In America majority black neighbourhoods are poorer than the white ones because in the recent past most well paid jobs went to white people, therefore the black people who lived during segregation didn't have the money and couldn't afford good education for their children and grandchildren. And as a consequence (of something that happened decades ago) black people in the modern day do not have the opportunities that white people have, and struggle with education and employment. Affirmative action is just an attempt to make the playing field more equal for those who would struggle to get into certain jobs, collages etc., white people can still get all of those things based on their own merit.

 

1 minute ago, Sinbabad said:

Also what I hate about wokism is the cancel culture and those who judge historical figures with nowadays criterias.

To touch on the 'cancel culture' aspect first. In my opinion, it isn't a real (effective) thing. If you think about the people who have been cancelled you get the likes of Dave Chappelle, who is still doing stand up comedy, or JK Rowling, who is still writing books and making millions, or Donald Trump, who has a 50/50 shot of being in-charge of the most powerful country in the world this year. Cancel culture really only works if what you are being cancelled for involves insurmountable evidence that you have committed a crime.

 

In regards to retroactively judging historical figures, in my opinion it is something that is needed to be done. Take Churchill for example, the man was a brilliant war time leader, he was also racist, the latter doesn't override the former but it is something that should be acknowledged. If you don't recognise the mistakes of the past then you don't learn from them. And with certain historical figures it isn't judging them based on modern ideas, Woodrow Wilson was incredibly racist even in the 1910s and Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner something that was criticised at the time by abolitionists. Statues of slave traders and the like should be taken down as we knowing better (not that people didn't know at the time) should not be proud of them.

[Sinbabad 1,124]

I don’t deny there was segregation in America, but like you said that was decades ago. And Obama went to Harvard and became president based on his own hard work and merit. Even before the affirmative action policies there were black middle class (granted, few).

Plus colleges and Ivy League schools are very expensive in the US and to me that’s the main issue. There are also poor white people. But no one stands up for them. They even call them white trash, rednecks…

In France, I’m not saying there is/was no racism and everything is perfect. But we never had segregation. Gaston Monnerville, a Guyanais, was President of the Senate in 1947 ! And for 20 years.

Most Grandes Écoles (Ivy league schools) are free and even paid their students : ENA, Normale Sup, Polytechnique…

So even someone poor (like minorities) can access to high education. Yet it isn’t enough for some people who want free pass for minorities.

 

About judging historical figures, I totally disagree with you. You will always find a negative aspect in someone life. Your example of Churchill is flagrant : who cares if he was racist if he was important for GB. And judging figures from the past with OUR standards is pointless to me. Destroying statues of important figures of our history and depicting them as bad characters because they were for slavery is stupid to me. Because doing that we will hate our history and our country.

In France some wokists backlash at Napoleon and want to destroy its statue’s because he reinstated slavery after the Revolution abolished it !

 

 

[Sinbabad 1,124]

1 hour ago, TQR said:

 

Do you also hate margarine, the BBC, Henry VIII's disability and the McDonald's uniform?

No I find it laughable.

[Commtech Sio Bibble 2,052]

47 minutes ago, Sinbabad said:

About judging historical figures, I totally disagree with you. You will always find a negative aspect in someone life. Your example of Churchill is flagrant : who cares if he was racist if he was important for GB. And judging figures from the past with OUR standards is pointless to me. Destroying statues of important figures of our history and depicting them as bad characters because they were for slavery is stupid to me. Because doing that we will hate our history and our country.

In France some wokists backlash at Napoleon and want to destroy its statue’s because he reinstated slavery after the Revolution abolished it !

1. Churchill IS an important figure in this country, he was still a racist. But like I said before it doesn't mean that he can't be celebrated, but by saying 'who cares' you are participating in historical revisionism just as much as those who focus entirely on that. Churchill had long career and lived a long life, he was like all a flawed person and you shouldn't ignore that just because he is a national hero as at that point you are dehumanising him and turning him into a godlike figure.

 

2. Our standards aren't new, Haiti abolished slavery in 1804 whilst many famous Americans continued to own slaves. What I'm trying to say is that people knew that these things were bad at the time and yet other people continued to do them because they're not perfect.

 

3. I agree that statues and the like shouldn't be destroyed, however I don't think that certain people should be memorialised, but it's really a case by case situation. To go back to Churchill, whilst he held questionable beliefs, he lead the UK in the fight against fascism and deserves to be memorialised, in comparison Edward Colston was a slave trader and is remembered as such and doesn't deserve a statue in public in the 2020s, don't erase the man from the history books but don't celebrate him.

 

4. I think every citizen of a country has the right to point out the flaws in it's systems, past and present. I'm English, I think the colonialism of the British empire was bad but I also think that we fought against Hitler in WWII and that's a good thing. You can find a balance and saying that you'll hate your country for recognising mistakes of the past is an insane thing to think and potentially shows that you've been blinded by nationalism.

 

5. Napoleon is a figure that I don't think should be praised for many reasons, slavery is just one but I won't go into that here.

 

You just seem to have a very polarised view of the world where people can't be human and make mistakes, they are either good or bad.

[Sinbabad 1,124]

8 minutes ago, Commtech Sio Bibble said:

You can find a balance

That’s the problem, the wokists always point out the flaws in our history, saying that the Whites/Western are the only criminals in the history of the world.

[TQR 14,399]

5 minutes ago, Sinbabad said:

That’s the problem, the wokists always point out the flaws in our history, saying that the Whites/Western are the only criminals in the history of the world.

 

What does 'wokist' mean?

[Sinbabad 1,124]

3 minutes ago, TQR said:

What does 'wokist' mean?

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/wokist

[Commtech Sio Bibble 2,052]

15 minutes ago, Sinbabad said:

That’s the problem, the wokists always point out the flaws in our history, saying that the Whites/Western are the only criminals in the history of the world.

There's surprisingly a lot to unpack in this small number of words but I need to go to bed soon so I'll just say that I don't see the issue in pointing out overlooked mistakes and flaws of the past.

[TQR 14,399]

8 minutes ago, Sinbabad said:

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/wokist

 

Wokist: Alternative form of wokeist.

Wokeist: A proponent of woke ideals.

Woke: 1) Conscious and not asleep; 2) Alert, aware of what is going on, or well-informed, especially in racial and other social justice issues; 3) Holding progressive views or attitudes, principally with regard to social justice.

 

Cor, such problematic people.

[Sinbabad 1,124]

4 minutes ago, Commtech Sio Bibble said:

There's surprisingly a lot to unpack in this small number of words but I need to go to bed soon so I'll just say that I don't see the issue in pointing out overlooked mistakes and flaws of the past.

The issue is that some people (not you) always point out mistakes and flaws and not good things.

[TQR 14,399]

Just now, Sinbabad said:

The issue is that some people (not you) always point out mistakes and flaws and not good things.

 

All these people shit-talking Fred West forget that he did a fucking good patio.

[Commtech Sio Bibble 2,052]

1 minute ago, TQR said:

 

All these people shit-talking Fred West forget that he did a fucking good patio.

You've just reminded me of this skit on Jeff Epstein 'The New York Financier' who no-one criticises.

 

 

 

[Sinbabad 1,124]

4 minutes ago, TQR said:

 

Wokist: Alternative form of wokeist.

Wokeist: A proponent of woke ideals.

Woke: 1) Conscious and not asleep; 2) Alert, aware of what is going on, or well-informed, especially in racial and other social justice issues; 3) Holding progressive views or attitudes, principally with regard to social justice.

 

Cor, such problematic people.

Problematic, no. I’m conservative and disagree with progressives that’s all.

I’ve no idea who Fred West is.

[One shot Paddy 1,206]

[Sinbabad 1,124]

26 minutes ago, One shot Paddy said:

Well, there’s a lot of "controversies" with Euro 2024 jerseys, with the Germany pink away kit and the St George Cross change for England…

[The Great Cornholio 902]

My opinion is that we can live in a world where we fight prominent injustices yet keep everyone's right to say what they want. Tolerance being mandatory, but you can have your opinions.

 

The way my own life has most been affected by the censorship caused from the woke ideology would be the change in rules in comedy. I love off-colour humour, be it memes, stand-up, youtube or whatever. I can understand why people don't like dark humour - but if you don't like something then don't watch it. Don't ruin it for everyone else. The new GTA is a good example. The GTA series is full of controversial jokes and missions etc. Its supposed to be, its a game for mature audiences that promotes all immoral things. Now GTA is being watered down to make it PC, like who asked for that? Its an 18+ game. You dont need to be politically correct in a game you kill hookers and work for bad people.

 

I also dont like the idea that people are cancelled for their opinions, be it fired from their jobs or banned from social media. Unless they want to cause physical harm to someone or believe in some extremist cause, like ISIS or BNP, then I dont think we should be cancelling people. As far as those people go, we should open a dialogue and debate those beliefs - instead of just being afraid of them. Otherwise a 'forbidden fruit' effect happens where those people feel like they are being censored because they know the truth - which is probably why the far right is currently on the rise worldwide.

 

I think thats why the term 'woke' is so hated by so many. When created, being woke (as aforementioned) meant being aware of injustices that do not directly affect you but affects others. It took compassionate people to promote this mindset but it also took totalitarian idiots to later ruin it by enforcing censorship, being condescending about how self-righteous they are and seeking out injustice where it doesnt exist (like with the scone thing or Henry VIII being disabled). Also maybe it would not has escalated to this extent had it not been for President Trump on the other end of the pendulum, so its not like the blame is all on one side.

[RoverAndOut 4,746]

First time looking in this thread. Lots of interesting points being made on all sides. Anyway, a recent example that I've come across is the new continuation of the X-Men animated series, X-Men 97 on Disney+.

 

Disgracefully, they've portrayed a shape-shifting, troubled mutant character Morph (who has always morphed into both male and female characters) as "nonbinary". They're also changed his stock appearance from being a white male (as it was in the original series) to a white, undefined blob (even though this is an accurate comic book representation of the character). There's also controversy that Rogue's arse isn't as big and round as it was in the 90s (I kid you not - although that argument somewhat falls apart if you see how they represent Jean Grey in Episode 3!).

 

Nice round-up of the general viewpoints here: https://www.intomore.com/entertainment/tv/conservatives-are-just-finding-out-the-x-men-are-woke/

 

What most amuses me is how the world of 2024 would have reacted to the original series airing in 1992, let alone the comics going back to the 60s and 70s. The comics are literally an allegory for the civil rights movement: a group of marginalised people mistrusted by the general populace fighting for social justice and equal rights. Mutants are people too. People should be more accepting about differences. This was one of the most successful TV animations of the 1990s and there was not a single eyelid batted from the conservative movement! And they call us snowflakes...

 

So, yes, the X-Men are woke. Shock horror.