Woke Culture is Clueless Why Average People Do Not Like Woke Entertainment

FireDragon76 said:

They don't see it that way (that they aren't following "God's law and order"), of course.

Click to expand...

But if you say they were progressive and say supported abortion or SSM then how can they not see it as wrong as its against Gods laws and order.

FireDragon76 said:

King was a liberal, albeit of a Christian humanist sort. He criticized Marxism on rare occasion, but his politics orientation was towards social democracy, and later in his life, especially before his assassination, he shifted towards his Poor People's Campaign, which was focused on economic justice for low-wage workers.

Click to expand...

Like I said if he was a liberal then how can he support stuff like abortion and SSM. I am not sure what you mean by social democracy. Democracy is something we all should support. But what is social democracy.

FireDragon76 said:

No. The concept of the Beloved Community comes from late 19th and early 20th century American idealist philosophy of Josiah Royce. It's the notion of a social group or community that is invested in the welfare of their neighbors, where everyone is cared for just for being a human being. It is has strong influences from the Christian tradition, of course, but of a liberal sort, not biblical fundamentalism. Royce was a member of what later became the liberal Mainline, he was not allied with biblical fundamentalism.

Click to expand...

Actually Kings vision of the Beloved Community was not about social welfare as in legalities and rights as with political activistism to achieve an equal and just society. It was about spiritual transformation. He realised that no human made ideology was going to achieve this but a spiritual transformation where people overcome their evil human condition through God.

He was against the critical legal studies (CLS) style theoretical deconstructionist approach that many liberal progressives take which is based more on Marxism. Whiuch was really the approach of the more subversive sections such as the black panthers ect. Which is similar to todays BLM ideology.

FireDragon76 said:

It's not necessarily accurate, more like polemic of certain ideologues on the Right to distract from substantive discussion. Basically, it's poisoning the well.

Click to expand...

No its a clear difference. The idea of progressive politics is to be open to progressive ideas. That means opposing traditional and especially religious morals such as strict morals on marriage and abortion. The Dems cannot have a clear position on marriage or abortion that conforms with Gods law because they have to accommodate those who disagree with Gods law and any single truth about what is mora. Basically moral subjectivism.

This is a fundemental reality of progressive parties. They cannot stand on any one truth and must be open to other alternatives. Its what progressive means.

Whereas the Right and conservatives can stand of Gods morals and declare there is only one moral truth and all alternatives are outside Gods truth and morals.

FireDragon76 said:

THe Democrat Party doesn't have hating God on its platform, last time I checked. Nor do they have hatred of the family as part of it, either.
Again, more polemics that lack substance.

Click to expand...

Not all hate God or the family. But like Harris said at her meeting when she said Jesus did not belong there and it was down the road. She could not stand on Christs truth as her supporters would have gone crazy.

This is the problem that no one within the Dems can declare Christ is truth because they have non Christains and alternative ideological beliefs that they have to cater for. Whereas the Republicans can declare God and Christ as that has always been their platform. Its a fundemental difference.

Someone can stand up on the Right and declare abortion is murder and against Gods laws. But if this was said on the Left there would be all sorts of protests as they have to cater to the prochoice activists. In fact Harris stood on pro abortion. How can a Christain support this.

No, Christians Cannot Support the Democrat Party

FireDragon76 said:

This is becoming just a screed at this point.

Click to expand...

Maybe but its the reality we need to face up to.

iluvatar5150 said:

No, equating "white" and "pretty" is, itself, a politicization. Breaking that association is playing the same game. People tend to only notice the latter because they're so used to the former that they've normalized it.

Click to expand...

Actually really its making an issue of either is the problem. Most of these intersections are just part of life and the fact is humans are attracted to beauty and that seems to befall on women more as beauty itself is more a feminine idea.

There's nothing wrong with that so long as its not put above as something that is better than other interesections of difference. In other ways being ugly or a geek can be beauty. But its the hyper focus on specific intersections over others.

Jordan Peterson mentions there can be endless differences and we could create a hierarchy of disadvantage on any combination. But only certain ones like race and gender are used and only certain races and genders are deemed worthy of attention. .

You could make a case for any idemtity group. Young white children who have ADHD and Autism. Over recent years a new epidemic on young white kids especially boys has become a new disadvantaged group. Asian girls suffering dibilitating anxiety. This is another new group.
Single old males who have retired and whose wife has passed are at the highest risk of suicide as they have lost all these connections and alone in society.

So we could forever breakdown different groups for victimisation to the point there are as many differences as there are individuals. We end up back at the inidividual rather than the group. And thats the point, its individual importance not group identity over individuals.

iluvatar5150 said:

What about them?

Click to expand...

The point was made that somehow equating white skin with beauty is something we should discourage like its some problem. I said what about all those who don't think its a problem. It seems it the ones who make it a problem are the ones creating the problem.

They are the ones bringing skin color and looks into it. Others just don't think that way. They just appreciate the movie or whatever it is being offered refardless of race, looks or gender.

iluvatar5150 said:

What's a reality? That there are people who equate "white" with "beautiful"?

Click to expand...

Yeah.people who see beauty in white women and colored women. Beauty is beauty and if that happens to be a white women its not just because she is white. At least not nowadays.

A black person will usually see a black women as more beautiful and a white will see the beauty in whites. Not because they are descriminating but because that is their natural inclination. They also see beauty in opposite races but have more of an inclination towards their own people. Maybe its evolutionary as tribes tend to associate with likeness.

iluvatar5150 said:

No, they are not based on "real life". I don't know why you think that. Who is Snow White based on?

Click to expand...

If you understand the concept of Snow White she was made to be pale and meek in contrast to the evil witch. That was for drasmatic effect. That was how people saw innocence and humbleness.

The same as with other characters like the villian was always a male and had some scar or was deranged looking. Look at the witch compared to the victim. Theres always a characteristic portrayed to denote the role. Its a natural inclination we have in how we see things.

iluvatar5150 said:

The Israel-Palestine conflict is not, primarily, a racial conflict - at least not in the way that race has largely manifested itself in the US.

Click to expand...

Yes but it was made a race thing by the celebs. This was because the celebs having star power and used their celeb status to push politics by bringing up such issues in the first place. Celebs should not be engaging in such things in the public square as its got nothing to do with a movie like Snow White.

But once it is made an issue all sorts of conflicts begin. Then others step in protesting, what about the dwares, what about disbaled, what about this identity or that identity. It opens the flood gates. In otherwords simply making it an issue is the issue.

Focusing on identity is what is causing descrimination and its the ones who are most vocal on race and gender rights who are the ones casuing the issue of race and gender rights by the fact they are always injecting it into everything. .

iluvatar5150 said:

Also, that's not in the movie. It's attached to the movie because of things the people involved with it have said outside of the movie, but it's not part of the movie itself.

Click to expand...

Yes but it becomes part of the movie as a result as far as what the movie represents in society. We havn't even seen the movie and yet people know more about the politics brought into it than they do the movie. Which was totalling unnecessary because as you say the movie had not politics in it.

iluvatar5150 said:

I wasn't talking about the action; I was talking about the motivations of all of the people in the movie. All of the stuff about abusive cops and Vietnam is very political.

Click to expand...

Not in the context of say Snopw White. The movies themselves had some political issues involved. So its really telling the story of the political issues for that time without ever specifying this or making a point of injecting a political issue that was not there in the first place. As compared to Snow White which as you said had no politics in it.

Telling a true story politics and all though its not really seen as politics but real life that happened to have a political issue attached already. Its just telling it like it is without any pushing of a political agenda. It leaves the people to decide what was right or wrong. But its important to tell the tru story as telling a skewed version is being political.

Apple Sky said:

So in other words they are reducing the Bible down to pronouns ?

Click to expand...

Pronouns and certain narratives as ideologues love words as they believe this is what creates reality by changing words and their meanings. But yes. Its subtle because its changing a word or two or not saying a word at first. Its amazing how much this can profoundly change views on how people see things.

Its like the idea of changing the meaning of sin. Its not really sin but a natural human tendency. By not referring to sin as sin it then becomes something that is human, and not breaching Gods laws. Sin and punishment is cruel and God would not be like that. Say it enough and soon there is no such thing as sin or hell.

I think basically this is the biggest threat that the modern church is watering down Gods word and Christs truth. Making it more hum,anistic. What is that saying, somethying like 'the greatest satan managed to achieve was convincing people there was no satan'. Something like that. The second is convincing Christains God is a softy.

stevevw said:

Yeah I miss the funny and non politically correct movies. Even when they mocked the church lol like Monty Python.

Click to expand...

@stevevw !!!

You lot are not politically correct !!!

You’re all very naughty boys !!!!

stevevw said:

But if you say they were progressive and say supported abortion or SSM then how can they not see it as wrong as its against Gods laws and order.

Like I said if he was a liberal then how can he support stuff like abortion and SSM. I am not sure what you mean by social democracy. Democracy is something we all should support. But what is social democracy.

Click to expand...

Abortion and SSM can't be discussed or debated on this forum, so I can't answer you. Sorry. I'm not going to be bated into doing so.

stevevw said:

Actually Kings vision of the Beloved Community was not about social welfare as in legalities and rights as with political activistism to achieve an equal and just society.

Click to expand...

Humans are political animals. That goes all the way back to Aristotle. The Beloved Community of course has political and economic implications.

stevevw said:

It was about spiritual transformation.

Click to expand...

King did not separate out the physical and spiritual in that manner. In general, the liberal Protestant tradition doesn't do that, and I'd argue it goes against the spirit of Luther or Calvin to do so as well.

What you're talking about is more like American Evangelical Pietism, the belief that salvation is about a personal decision for Jesus and has no implications on how we conduct our affairs in this world, because the world is somehow less holy and worthy of our concern than "saving souls".

stevevw said:

He was against the critical legal studies (CLS) style theoretical deconstructionist approach that many liberal progressives take which is based more on Marxism. Whiuch was really the approach of the more subversive sections such as the black panthers ect. Which is similar to todays BLM ideology.

Click to expand...

That doesn't mean he'ld be in agreement with the symbolic racist politics of the New Right.

stevevw said:

No its a clear difference. The idea of progressive politics is to be open to progressive ideas. That means opposing traditional and especially religious morals such as strict morals on marriage and abortion. The Dems cannot have a clear position on marriage or abortion that conforms with Gods law because they have to accommodate those who disagree with Gods law and any single truth about what is mora. Basically moral subjectivism.

Click to expand...

As I said, I can't discuss that with you on this forum. So why bring it up?

stevevw said:

This is a fundemental reality of progressive parties. They cannot stand on any one truth and must be open to other alternatives. Its what progressive means.

Click to expand...

More dishonest polemics.

stevevw said:

Whereas the Right and conservatives can stand of Gods morals and declare there is only one moral truth and all alternatives are outside Gods truth and morals.

Click to expand...

They stand on their own narrow and self serving reading of the Bible.

stevevw said:

No, Christians Cannot Support the Democrat Party

No, Christians Cannot Support the Democrat Party - TruthScript

This election year don’t be deceived when you hear Christians say that voting Democrat is a legitimate option for a true Christian.

truthscript.com

Click to expand...

Yes, they can. I don't need the approval of right wing ideologues on that matter.

Confused-by-christianity said:

@stevevw !!!

You lot are not politically correct !!!

You’re all very naughty boys !!!!

Click to expand...

I'm going to have to refer you to the 'People's Front of Judea'. But don't ever call em the 'Judean Peoples Front'. They hate the 'Judean Peoples Front' more than the Romans. Blessed are the 'cheesemakers'.

FireDragon76 said:

Abortion and SSM can't be discussed or debated on this forum, so I can't answer you. Sorry. I'm not going to be bated into doing so.

Click to expand...

Ok I did not know this. Havn't people mentioned these before. Why can't we speak about these things. They were heavily discussed in threads during the election.

FireDragon76 said:

Humans are political animals. That goes all the way back to Aristotle. The Beloved Community of course has political and economic implications.

Click to expand...

Yes but King avoid the confrontations and subversive tactics of the political ideologues of the time who wanted to tear and undermine the system. His approach was very different to the critical justice approach of other progressives that caused divisions of blacks against a white system as done today. Todays ideologues use the same critical justice ideology as those in the 60s.

FireDragon76 said:

King did not separate out the physical and spiritual in that manner. In general, the liberal Protestant tradition doesn't do that, and I'd argue it goes against the spirit of Luther or Calvin to do so as well.

Click to expand...

All I know is from their approach today which is based on identity politics and cultural Marxism ie white priviledge and supremecy. Ideas like open borders, defunding police and the white system is inherently racist and should be dismantled. This is also reflected in feminist ideas such as toxic mascullinity and the Patriarchy. These themes have been evidence for years.

FireDragon76 said:

What you're talking about is more like American Evangelical Pietism, the belief that salvation is about a personal decision for Jesus and has no implications on how we conduct our affairs in this world, because the world is somehow less holy and worthy of our concern than "saving souls".

Click to expand...

I think it was about a sopiritual transformation. The belief that not only was the human condition inherently sinful but that through Christ it could rise above this nature. So it was transcending the civil right activism and more non violent resistence.

FireDragon76 said:

That doesn't mean he'ld be in agreement with the symbolic racist politics of the New Right.

Click to expand...

I am not sure what that is.

FireDragon76 said:

As I said, I can't discuss that with you on this forum. So why bring it up?

Click to expand...

Because I did not realise this.

FireDragon76 said:

More dishonest polemics.

Click to expand...

Its not, its basic logic. We know the party includes SSM and abortion. They declare this. Pro abortion was Kamala's number one policy issue she stood on. The part, those who support her supported pro abortion. Its a matter of simple logic that you can't be a Christain and support abortion or SSM or Trans ideology. All of which the Dems support or include in their party as supporting.

FireDragon76 said:

They stand on their own narrow and self serving reading of the Bible.

Click to expand...

The bible is clearly against abortion. God makes it clear that He knows us in the womb from conception and even before this. Each is a soul and Gods child.

So we can tell what is Gods truth is and as progressive ideology aligns with secular ideology rather than Gods order it at the very leasts leaves the door open for such beliefs that are not within Gods laws and order.

FireDragon76 said:

Yes, they can. I don't need the approval of right wing ideologues on that matter.

Click to expand...

I am not a right wing. I am simply pointing out the truth and really common sense and is the majority view.

2PhiloVoid said:

True. I think Disney has been butchering my favorite franchises ever since they released the Eternals movie. Then, they messed up She-Hulk, and decided to further the egregiousness of their bad writing with the release of both the Acolyte and Agatha.

I don't know what they could do to get me back........................................ I'm waiting for them to kill off more favorite franchises.

They'll probably even screw up Ghost Rider and the Hulk (two of my all-time favorites). I have no positive expectations any longer.

Click to expand...

I'm a little late in the game of responding to this thread but the woke culture in Hollywood just doesn't want to go away and this looked like the perfect thread to point that out. But it is more than woke culture, Hollywood doesn't even understand what the morals are that have been around for hundreds if not thousands of years. The liberal media environment is trying to overwrite the good and true morals of the past with their own new age morals. They are never going to stop until they have converted the entire world to their thought process.

When Trump won the presidency in 2024, the liberal mindset took a crushing blow. Many people thought it was the end of the liberal mindset but no, liberals were not going away that easy. They are fighting their way back (and winning in some instances) against the conservative mindset. Why? Because in some areas of thought, conservative thinking is just a bad as liberal thinking. But that is an argument for another day.

Now, I want to address this "back to woke" ideology spewing from the liberal media culture. Cynthia Erivo as Jesus in Jesus Christ Superstar, why? Meryl Streep as Aslan in the Chronicles of Narnia, why? Finally (and no where near as significant as the other two examples except that the Silver Surfer has always been the coolest dude in Marvel Comics history), a woman plays the role of the Silver Surfer in Marvel's latest Fantastic Four movie, why? Why do these "out of touch and arrogant" producers and directors of the entertainment business keep ticking off the average person looking for entertainment not indoctrination. And why do these same producers and directors feel they can substitute their "wants and needs" in for the person who created the history, story, or character(s).

I use AI that creates art. Some people use AI that creates stories or music. There are many people out there in society who vehemently hate people who use AI to create paintings, stories, music. It is understandable to a certain extent. But when you have the professionals (the ones who actually know how to paint or write novels or write music) creating paintings, stories or music and it is primary woke or offensive or garbage, how is the average person who likes to look at beautiful art or read interesting and adventurous books or listen to great music suppose to react. Now they have AI to help them create beautiful art, interesting and adventurous stories and great music. Maybe these people will replace those woke people. Wouldn't that be nice .

I think what's more problematic about Disney movies is the lack of real creativity. Deconstructing fairy tales obvious tropes isn't exactly artistically brave, it's actually more like a sucker punch, and thirty years two late.