WokeWatch™

[TQR 12,249]

Society is being strangled by woke ideology/mind virus/blob. Here’s a place to document all that’s woke in the world so we can either avoid/get angry about it. See, at the bottom of the post, a comprehensive, growing list of woke things to be furious at (with thanks to AFB for this idea). If you see it, report it.

 

First: Scones.

 

 

 

Avoid These At All Costs Cos They're Woke!!!1!!

1. Scones made with margarine
2. The BBC
3. The National Trust
4. McDonalds
5. Team GB
6. Fantastic Four
7. Scrabble
8. Defibrillators

[TQR 12,249]

No.2: The BBC, owing to the £0.96/mo rise in the license fee, according to angry current affairs discussion source that begged me for money the second I clicked on the link to the article.

The BBC is of course the home of Fiona Bruce, Laura Kuenssberg, Richard Sharp until recently…

 

[Toast 14,860]

I read about the scones earlier, and I thought it was an April Fool story until I noticed the date.

[Paul Bearer 5,697]

[Torva Messor 252]

What is "woke" about replacing natural fats with industrially processed, possibly hydrogenated, seed oils?  That seems cheap and duplicitous. Is a natural foods diet antithetical to "Woke" practice? 

[An Fear Beag 1,355]

I must admit that when I glanced at @TQR's original post on my phone earlier today, I thought that he was seriously creating a thread to highlight "woke" nonsense in the world, and I was wondering what the fuck was going on. It's only when I read it properly this evening that I realised that he wasn't being serious and it is a thread to highlight the ridiculous use of "woke" to describe pretty much anything that someone doesn't like or agree with.

 

As Torva said, what the fuck is "woke" about margarine? My mother has being using it for baking for as long as I can remember- she reckons it makes her cakes/scones lighter and fluffier (and yes I have checked - the marge she uses is vegan - no dairy additives at all.) She is 75 years old, and I don't think she has heard the term "woke", much less understands what it means. (To be honest, I am not sure I really understand what it means either).

From a purely business perspective, it makes absolute sense to use vegan margarine for commercial baking  - it saves on having to make 2 batches of everything. Vegans can eat the stuff, and non-vegans are not going to notice the fucking difference.

 

I suppose the only reason they did it "secretly" is that if they announced that they were doing it, they would get a whole heap of shit from people who were determined to get offended over something that doesn't really matter. Which sounds a little bit "woke", no?

[TQR 12,249]

44 minutes ago, An Fear Beag said:

I must admit that when I glanced at @TQR's original post on my phone earlier today, I thought that he was seriously creating a thread to highlight "woke" nonsense in the world, and I was wondering what the fuck was going on. It's only when I read it properly this evening that I realised that he wasn't being serious and it is a thread to highlight the ridiculous use of "woke" to describe pretty much anything that someone doesn't like or agree with.

 

As Torva said, what the fuck is "woke" about margarine? My mother has being using it for baking for as long as I can remember- she reckons it makes her cakes/scones lighter and fluffier (and yes I have checked - the marge she uses is vegan - no dairy additives at all.) She is 75 years old, and I don't think she has heard the term "woke", much less understands what it means. (To be honest, I am not sure I really understand what it means either).

From a purely business perspective, it makes absolute sense to use vegan margarine for commercial baking  - it saves on having to make 2 batches of everything. Vegans can eat the stuff, and non-vegans are not going to notice the fucking difference.

 

I suppose the only reason they did it "secretly" is that if they announced that they were doing it, they would get a whole heap of shit from people who were determined to get offended over something that doesn't really matter. Which sounds a little bit "woke", no?

 

Hopefully this thread should cater for everyone. Those hellbent on being angry and spiteful can revel in being furious about woke scones or universities or whatever examples we find and post hereabouts, while sane people can laugh at the mad cunts coming up with this stuff (invariaby the MailSunExpressTelegraphGBeebiesUlitzerZorders of the world).

 

As for margarine, I assume it's 'woke' because we should be using lard scooped straight out of a live animal. And, of course, National Trust. Grrrr. Wokesters. 

 

Which brings me neatly onto No.3: The National Trust stand accused by the Daily Mail (who else?) of giving Henry VIII a 'woke rebrand' - by describing him as disabled. Which, after an armoured horse mashed his legs to fuck 1536, he very much was. But no! Grrrr. Woke ideology.

 

[TQR 12,249]

No.4: The McDonalds uniform, according to The Sun, has been SLAMMED for being woke. They found one staff member who said it "feels woke" because they now have more than one option of what to wear.

[An Fear Beag 1,355]

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". That way we can just check the list when we come across something that may or may not be "woke", so we know what to be annoyed at. 

 

So far we seems to have:

 

1. Margarine (I thinks it is the margarine that is "woke", not the scones, but I am open to correction!)

2. Licence fee increases

3. Historical accuracy

4. Comfortable workwear.

 

 

 

[ladyfiona 2,043]

I'm woke according to my manager because I want basic human rights for everyone including immigrants.

 

Oh she gets annoyed about the pride flag being raised in June (pride month).

[The Great Cornholio 819]

Woke is good when it comes to fighting injustices like modern day slavery, sexual harassment, gay rights in 3rd world countries and police brutality. Its good to have awareness about stuff like that, which is what the term 'woke' is supposed to mean.

 

The biggest problem is that people are digging for injustices in things when there isnt any there (eg dressing as Hitler at a costume party or saying milk/scones are racist). That and extreme pandering, like making Juliet black in the new Romeo and Juliet. At that point its just showing off how 'not racist' you are - which counterintuitively makes people question if you'd done something racist/dangerously unwoke in the past which you are trying to overcompensate for.

[ladyfiona 2,043]

My parents once when to a Shakespeare production at Globe theatre where there was a genderbending/gender swap of all characters and apparently it was the worst thing they had ever seen.

[Bibliogryphon 8,684]

Just now, ladyfiona said:

My parents once when to a Shakespeare production at Globe theatre where there was a genderbending/gender swap of all characters and apparently it was the worst thing they had ever seen.

 

At the RSC there is a lot of gender neutral casting

 

I saw a Julius Caesar with a female Brutus. A female Timon of Athens and in the Macbeth we saw last year there was a female Banquo although that was probably the second worst Macbeth I have ever seen.

 

In the theatre I do not really have a problem with it. My daughter is in a touring production of Macbeth and because of the size of the cast she is frequently any one of the witches, Donalbain, Lady Macduff and Young Siward on a nightly basis

 

In Kenneth Branagh's film version of Much Ado About Nothing I did not hear any howls of protest when Keanu Reeves and Denzel Washington were cast as half brothers though I find that less incredulous than people who claim Robert Sean Leonard could act

 

 

[An Fear Beag 1,355]

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.

 

[The Great Cornholio 819]

12 minutes 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.

 

Juliet isn't black though, she is Italian. So it would make sense for her to be (or look) Italian. Otherwise its like making Mogli from the Jungle Book Swedish, deliberate inaccuracy for the sake of diversity. Also who exactly is this helping? All black people? Seems kinda patronising tbh. 

[TQR 12,249]

22 minutes ago, The Great Cornholio said:

Juliet isn't black though, she is Italian. So it would make sense for her to be (or look) Italian. Otherwise its like making Mogli from the Jungle Book Swedish, deliberate inaccuracy for the sake of diversity. Also who exactly is this helping? All black people? Seems kinda patronising tbh. 

 

Jesus is most often depicted as being a white bloke when he (should you believe such a person existed) definitely wouldn't have been. Once upon a time, women weren't allowed in plays at all. So misrepresentation, often racial, has historically happened to an enormous extent, normally the way of the least discriminated against (white, straight, male). A little bit of additional diversity to an otherwise very undiverse production isn't the end of the world, I wouldn't have thought; it's often not meant to be on point wrt historically accuracy anyway.

 

You make some good points though; 'woke' is as you defined it earlier, it's just a word recently subject to being bastardised by the perpetually angry who want to say nasty things without consequence. Also true is that one must be careful not to patronise an historically discriminated-against group; the best thing to do is listen to their perspective, right?

[DCI Frank Burnside 2,706]

On 01/04/2024 at 14:35, TQR said:

Society is being strangled by woke ideology/mind virus/blob. Here’s a place to document all that’s woke in the world so we can either avoid/get angry about it.

 

First: Scones.

 

 

[gcreptile 10,242]

Woke is the new gay.

You know, protecting the environment used to be gay. Now it's woke.

 

[An Fear Beag 1,355]

1 hour ago, The Great Cornholio said:

Juliet isn't black though, she is Italian. So it would make sense for her to be (or look) Italian. 

 

Like Claire Danes, you mean? She doesn't look remotely Italian, and yet no-one batted an eyelid. Why is it that people will accept pale white actors/actresses playing characters that should have darker skin (Glenda Jackson, Helen Mirren and Judy Dench all played the Egyptian Cleopatra on stage, and no-one cared), but have trouble accepting black actors/actresses playing the same characters?

And why are people obsessed that the actor/actress looks authentic? I have never seen an actress playing Juliet who sounded Italian (they all spoke English for a start!), and yet people suspended belief and accepted that they were Italian. So why is it so essential that they look a certain way?

 

1 hour ago, The Great Cornholio said:

Otherwise its like making Mogli from the Jungle Book Swedish, deliberate inaccuracy for the sake of diversity.

 

Except it isn't. It would be the very opposite of diversity, given the relative number of parts available to actors of different ethnic backgrounds.

 

One big difference between The Jungle Book and Romeo and Juliet, is that while the jungle setting is essential to the story of the former, Italy is really not essential to the plot of Romeo and Juliet, in the same way that Denmark is not really essential to the plot of Hamlet. It is a play about star-crossed lovers, not about Verona. It could be set in Verona, Mississippi and the story would work just as well. So for the purpose of the play, it really does not matter what colour skin Romeo or Juliet have.

 

2 hours ago, The Great Cornholio said:

Also who exactly is this helping? 

 

Well, I'm guessing it's helping the actress who got to play the iconic role

 

2 hours ago, The Great Cornholio said:

deliberate inaccuracy for the sake of diversity. Also who exactly is this helping? All black people? Seems kinda patronising tbh. 

 

I will hold my hands up here and admit that I am not familiar with the version that you are referring to here - I have been speaking more generally. So if the director has come out and said that they gave the role to an actress purely because she black, then I will happily say that I disagree with that. However, more generally, I have an issue with people assuming that a role has been given to an actor/actress purely for the sake of diversity. Have you considered the possibility that he/she got the role because they are a bloody good actor/actress who deserved a shot at playing the part, despite peoples pre-conceived ideas of what the character should look like? How is giving good roles to good black actors/actresses patronising? Should we ban all non-white actors from doing Shakespeare (except Othello), because that is not how Shakespeare envisaged the characters 400 years ago?

[An Fear Beag 1,355]

As an aside, I like the Mail's idea that the National Trust "secretly" changing the scone recipe is "virtue-signalling". 

 

I would suggest that if you want to signal something, doing it secretly is probably not the best way to go about it. 

[Sinbabad 833]

3 hours ago, An Fear Beag said:

provided she is a good enough actress for the role. 

 

 

7 minutes ago, An Fear Beag said:

I have an issue with people assuming that a role has been given to an actor/actress purely for the sake of diversity. Have you considered the possibility that he/she got the role because they are a bloody good actor/actress who deserved a shot at playing the part, despite peoples pre-conceived ideas of what the character should look like? 

Well that’s the point. Nowadays in movies it’s affirmative action like in colleges. The movie industry says it loud and clear : they WANT more diversity in movies. The Oscar Academy said it won’t give any Oscar to a movie provided it has a certain amount of minority actors. It’s not meritocracy or talent anymore, actors are choosed because they NEED a black or asian.

 

As for Black (or other minorities) playing "white" characters, what if it was the other way around ? For example if a White actor played Mandela, Martin Luther King or Toussaint Louverture, what would Black people feel ?

 

 

[Handrejka 1,841]

18 minutes ago, Sinbabad said:

 

 

Well that’s the point. Nowadays in movies it’s affirmative action like in colleges. The movie industry says it loud and clear : they WANT more diversity in movies. The Oscar Academy said it won’t give any Oscar to a movie provided it has a certain amount of minority actors. It’s not meritocracy or talent anymore, actors are choosed because they NEED a black or asian.

 

As for Black (or other minorities) playing "white" characters, what if it was the other way around ? For example if a White actor played Mandela, Martin Luther King or Toussaint Louverture, what would Black people feel ?

 

 

 

Like Angelina Jolie playing Mariane Pearl or Joseph Fiennes portraying Michael Jackson?  Actually there was a bit of backlash for the latter, but I don't remember there being much for the former example.

[Commtech Sio Bibble 1,375]

 

[An Fear Beag 1,355]

26 minutes ago, Sinbabad said:

As for Black (or other minorities) playing "white" characters, what if it was the other way around ? For example if a White actor played Mandela, Martin Luther King or Toussaint Louverture, what would Black people feel ?

 

I am sure you can appreciate the difference between someone playing a fictional character (Juliet) and someone portraying a real life person like Mandela or King. In the latter case, we know what they looked like. In the former, they can look like anything you want them to look like.

 

 

[Commtech Sio Bibble 1,375]

54 minutes ago, Sinbabad said:

As for Black (or other minorities) playing "white" characters, what if it was the other way around ? For example if a White actor played Mandela, Martin Luther King or Toussaint Louverture, what would Black people feel ?

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).