• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Thoughts on the mainstreaming of anti-woke and what it means for near future cultural development

Pumpkin Seeds

Member
Jul 13, 2018
722
892
365
Something counter culture normally has some show or movie attached to it which makes it mainstream. That probably won't happen with the anti-woke because the woke control those platforms and this particular counter-culture exists heavily online. (And even it's online platforms continually try to suppress it.)

So you'll likely see heavily compromised versions trying to push their way through. Turning Point USA is trying to start some sort of celeb culture show. There's no way that doesn't completely contradict whatever values they have and it certainly won't reflect the counter-culture element that drives the whole reaction against wokeness/blue church/etc,

It's largely spread into other parts of culture via memes and how that ends up.. I don't know. We see the mainstream culture villianize the memes. (See the insane stupidity that is pepe the frog is racism mentality.) But that approach is merely preaching to the choir. Most people ignore that and just laugh at the memes. Comedy is subversive that way. I wonder how you get something funny like babylon bee out into establishment platforms.

Also, having thought about this whole situation, I've also begun to wonder if—in general—millenials are the first modern generation to reach the point of appearing "out of touch" before their preceding generation. I am guessing Gen X is the preceding gen there? All I know is that if you're as uptight and sheltered as being woke entails and you've had little critical thinking taught to you (a major loss in public education which millenials are the first to go through) then you'll likely not get the counter-culture or purposefully try to not "get it". Gen X may be more likely to get it, though I could be wrong about that.
 
Oct 15, 2019
75
67
185
New York
Something counter culture normally has some show or movie attached to it which makes it mainstream. That probably won't happen with the anti-woke because the woke control those platforms and this particular counter-culture exists heavily online. (And even it's online platforms continually try to suppress it.)

So you'll likely see heavily compromised versions trying to push their way through. Turning Point USA is trying to start some sort of celeb culture show. There's no way that doesn't completely contradict whatever values they have and it certainly won't reflect the counter-culture element that drives the whole reaction against wokeness/blue church/etc,

It's largely spread into other parts of culture via memes and how that ends up.. I don't know. We see the mainstream culture villianize the memes. (See the insane stupidity that is pepe the frog is racism mentality.) But that approach is merely preaching to the choir. Most people ignore that and just laugh at the memes. Comedy is subversive that way. I wonder how you get something funny like babylon bee out into establishment platforms.

Also, having thought about this whole situation, I've also begun to wonder if—in general—millenials are the first modern generation to reach the point of appearing "out of touch" before their preceding generation. I am guessing Gen X is the preceding gen there? All I know is that if you're as uptight and sheltered as being woke entails and you've had little critical thinking taught to you (a major loss in public education which millenials are the first to go through) then you'll likely not get the counter-culture or purposefully try to not "get it". Gen X may be more likely to get it, though I could be wrong about that.
I'd argue that the reason Gen X doesnt seem out of touch is that it's culture is relatively moderate as far as partisan politics goes. Sure it's dominated by consumerism and excess, but the counter culture at its core was essentially "Fuck off hippies, you're never going to tear down the system, so you should try to exploit it to work for you." At its core, that's an ideal that lines up well with the concept of capitalism. So, as long as capitalism remains core to the American identity, their views are going to roughly align with the youths. Millennials are another more radical generation, along the lines of the Boomers or Interbellum Generation. My pet theory is that generations like this are caused by periods of excess followed by unpopular action. Intebellum had the roaring 20s crash into the great depression. Boomers had the post WWII prosperity into the Vietnam War. And I think Millennials are a result of the DotCom bubble crashing into the war on terror. This kind of perceived failure leads to the kind of revolutionary thinking where the youth sees the best option as tearing it all down. We'll rebound as Gen Z tells them to fuck off.
 
Last edited:

Pumpkin Seeds

Member
Jul 13, 2018
722
892
365
I'd argue that the reason Gen X doesnt seem out of touch is that it's culture is relatively moderate as far as partisan politics goes. Sure it's dominated by consumerism and excess, but the counter culture at its core was essentially "Fuck off hippies, you're never going to tear down the system, so you should try to exploit it to work for you." At its core, that's an ideal that lines up well with the concept of capitalism. So, as long as capitalism remains core to the American identity, their views are going to roughly align with the youths. Millennials are another more radical generation, along the lines of the Boomers or Interbellum Generation. My pet theory is that generations like this are caused by periods of excess followed by unpopular action. Intebellum had the roaring 20s crash into the great depression. Boomers had the post WWII prosperity into the Vietnam War. And I think Millennials are a result of the DotCom bubble crashing into the war on terror. This kind of perceived failure leads to the kind of revolutionary thinking where the youth sees the best option as tearing it all down. We'll rebound as Gen Z tells them to fuck off.
That's not entirely the attitude of Gen X. That was an 80s attitude, but Gen X certainly had a cynical and ironic theme as well. It also had a very anti-commercialism twinge to it. That did follow the excess of the 80s and the optimism excess of the hippies. Mostly, I think Gen X never tried to do much once it hit the 30-50 age range. There is wokeness within the generation but also cynicism towards it. At this point, Gen X is sort of a milieu. Think I saw Eric Weinstein talk about this once, how Gen X never really did anything and left the table to the following generation which went full woke.
 
Oct 26, 2018
7,011
6,406
505
Enter Linkedin and you'll find that the corporate world is INUNDATED with this shit.
I agree in terms of the news feed and people patting each other on the back with suck up replies.

But every company Ive work at (every place I've worked at are large corporations) doesn't act this way when actually hiring people.

Out of the 100s (maybe even 1,000+) people I've seen or worked with, I've never seen one person with stupidly dyed hair, tons of earrings or any weird shit. For the people that do have lots of tattoos, they wear long sleeve shirts and cover up. Everyone acts pretty professional. Maybe at home they act weird, but not at work.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: lock2k

Durask

Member
Feb 6, 2012
1,796
602
635
I don't know at this point the media and the academia are permeated with wokeness. I am not sure the trend can be reversed.
 

Dontero

Member
Apr 19, 2018
2,159
2,090
565
Another point, it's been proven that better guaranteed health of kids (drop in infant mortality) reduces birth rates, which makes sense, if you think that parents will have more kids if they consider the risk of death of any of their children to be higher. This surely is an argument for a good system of public health? Withdrawing welfare and creating penury may have an opposite effect of actually increasing the number of kids being born.
It is not proven by any means. In fact reason why people don't have kids in 1st world is actually connected to pension system.

If you look at people in middle ages which were rich they had often times MORE children than poor people because rich people were able to get official wife and concubines. So the idea that wealth or healthcare is prime factor was always wrong.

To understand why pension system is the cause you need to first answer fundamental question:

" Why people have kids ? "

This is now much more muddy to answer but let us go back 100 years ago:

- kids are the only way to survive your old age. If you don't have kids you starve to death if you are sick or unable to work anymore.
- kid after 5-6 years can already help parents and with just 2-3 more years already can work with parents providing more and more work as kid grows. So big family means that more wealth can be generated.

So kids were VALUABLE ECONOMICAL ASSET to family. The best way poor family could improve their life was to create children.

Now let us put that to what socialism did in last 100 years:

- pension system removes need for kids when you get old.
- kids are barred from work and parents can't use their labor until they are effectively ready to leave house.

Kids simply lost their economical value to family. But that is not where it is ending.

- kids became property of state not their parents. Parents can be punished if they don't do with kids what state wants (like case of forced education)
- due to above parents have pressure to meet demands of society in how they rise their children. And if by chance something happens to kid parents are responsible with their heads.

So not only their economical value to family was destroyed but also rising child became something negative, set of rules you need to follow or government will fuck you up.

This is the reason why kids aren't born in 1st world countries. Because socialism made children who were always benefit to family into disaster that can backfire on you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brazen

Roni

Member
Aug 13, 2015
1,895
747
670
28
São Paulo, Brazil
Post modernists found a way to destroy every value system they could find through the study of language. They're not wrong, but they also forgot that leaves most people drifting, since most won't be able to make sense of the world for themselves.

That's dangerous, because what that shows is that people will double down and defend their world abstraction.

Even if it's irrational to do so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zenspider
Mar 18, 2018
2,172
1,657
385
Post modernists found a way to destroy every value system they could find through the study of language. They're not wrong, but they also forgot that leaves most people drifting, since most won't be able to make sense of the world for themselves.

That's dangerous, because what that shows is that people will double down and defend their world abstraction.

Even if it's irrational to do so.
While it is important to study things and have alternative perspectives, it does not mean they are right. It just means you cannot easily dismiss their input as a variable into the human condition.

It is an achedemic behavior that belongs in higher learning. It does not belong outside that because it moves through people like a religion.
 

Starlight Lotice

Formerly 'Turkey Master Baster'
Dec 25, 2018
2,626
2,235
715
Manchester, England
I think the OP is trying to say thay we are going to swing back into the Individualism of "I will ignore people who are easily offended" and are desensitized when genuine people are hurt by that Individuals opinons, right or wrong.

We have idiots who get offended at everything, but then we have people who can't sympathise with others and only care for themselves, which I think is going to happen as the years go by.

A wild west of sorts where your actions and opinions/facts are true to yourself even if someone else points out how unfair that is, but they don't care.

Non-accountability seems to be the name of the game these days where responsibilities are shifted or ignored (not just the Far left but the Right as well). We need dialogue without the shit flinging as we seem to call out SJWs but now and again they have a few valid points where the world can seem uncaring on the outside looking in.

On their side, they should understand that a meaning behind an insult isn't always malicious, and the so called "Anti-Woke" need to understand that they can't always be stubborn and refuse to take another point of view and insult just to annoy others. Respect goes both ways.

Regarding Local Politics:

I am anti-Tory myself and it isn't because of their ideas or plans for the UK but because some of the Tories that lead the party are pretty damn awful people and are more or less not very sympathetic to the British people. However, most Voters think very short term (Brexit, Woke Culture) and don't think of the long repurcussions of how the Tory Party works. They are very against Disabled People (at least the important Tories who never lived the average poplaces life), they hate the idea of Welfare of those who need it and the Workers Rights are a shambles for those who work tirelessly but are ignored for the lazy but easily influential. Voters primarily think only of themselves, which mostly are valid...until they happen to be on the receiving end.

There needs to be a balance and Labour unfortunately took the privileged young folk who haven't been in the real world as their main voters and not the Young Folk who work because their parents can't or won't provide, or the middle class who are screwed over in other ways.

If Boris Johnson really can help a lot of British people then I will hold my hands up and say the Tories of now are better than any other ers of Tories, but until then I am sceptical of their policies after Brexit.

My experience of the Anti Woke is they do have apoint not to be offended by anything, but I feel that they have desensitized themselves from some really nasty stuff in the world that makes them appear not very relatable people and that is a sad way to see things in the world. Take the Good and Bad stuff and show your passion.

The Woke Culture need to see more positives in life and switch off from the bad stuff now and again as it will make you ill. You can call out injustices but there is always a peaceful way of doing this, and small things like "Cats are eaten by Chinese people" are not going to be solved by yourselves anytime soon unless you educate the Chinese populace about it, but that will take generations like for the South Koreans about Dogs.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: zenspider

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
11,430
17,982
855


There isn't a good thread for this, but I'll put it here.

This isn't really a condemnation of wokeness, but Beck puts together a really engrossing reminder of what makes America great. He gets into a lot of 'woke' issues, like the founding of America, and reads from the actual behind the scenes documents to give a far more in depth view of what our Founders were thinking and why certain decisions were made. He talks about Lincoln, the Statue of Liberty, Washington, Jesse Owens, baseball cards, and more... little anecdotes and historical footnotes that all come together in an excellent address.

Highly recommended. A strong antidote for the woke rewriting of history our current media is engaged in. Also, Beck owns [or at least has access to] some amazing historical artifacts [which he discusses].
 
Last edited:

zenspider

Member
May 9, 2016
2,656
1,232
455
I’m going to read this again and think about it more - I’m really getting interested in inter-generational thinking (can you define your gens, eg. Millennials 1980-1995, etc.?) ,but there’s one problem about your conclusion that I’ve been hitting against a lot lately:
being ‘anti-woke’ is in no way shape or form evidence of being rational or even reasonable.

There’s some dumb motherfuckers I have the misfortune of agreeing with about a lot of things.
 
Last edited:

zenspider

Member
May 9, 2016
2,656
1,232
455
Post modernists found a way to destroy every value system they could find through the study of language. They're not wrong, but they also forgot that leaves most people drifting, since most won't be able to make sense of the world for themselves.

That's dangerous, because what that shows is that people will double down and defend their world abstraction.

Even if it's irrational to do so.
I love this look at it. It’s like the deconstruction sub-routine in Postmodernism went sub-atomic and are attacking the most fundamental pieces with which to rebuild with.

I’m also glad to see someone not get triggered by the word ‘postmodernism’ and reflexively regurgitating a Jordan Peterson talking point. Postmodernism did a lot of good work to eat the corrosion on our institutions, but we don’t know how to stop it from getting at the foundation.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Roni

zenspider

Member
May 9, 2016
2,656
1,232
455
It is not proven by any means. In fact reason why people don't have kids in 1st world is actually connected to pension system.

If you look at people in middle ages which were rich they had often times MORE children than poor people because rich people were able to get official wife and concubines. So the idea that wealth or healthcare is prime factor was always wrong.

To understand why pension system is the cause you need to first answer fundamental question:

" Why people have kids ? "

This is now much more muddy to answer but let us go back 100 years ago:

- kids are the only way to survive your old age. If you don't have kids you starve to death if you are sick or unable to work anymore.
- kid after 5-6 years can already help parents and with just 2-3 more years already can work with parents providing more and more work as kid grows. So big family means that more wealth can be generated.

So kids were VALUABLE ECONOMICAL ASSET to family. The best way poor family could improve their life was to create children.

Now let us put that to what socialism did in last 100 years:

- pension system removes need for kids when you get old.
- kids are barred from work and parents can't use their labor until they are effectively ready to leave house.

Kids simply lost their economical value to family. But that is not where it is ending.

- kids became property of state not their parents. Parents can be punished if they don't do with kids what state wants (like case of forced education)
- due to above parents have pressure to meet demands of society in how they rise their children. And if by chance something happens to kid parents are responsible with their heads.

So not only their economical value to family was destroyed but also rising child became something negative, set of rules you need to follow or government will fuck you up.

This is the reason why kids aren't born in 1st world countries. Because socialism made children who were always benefit to family into disaster that can backfire on you.
This is an really interesting idea looking at systemic incentives ‘nudging’ group behavior, but it’s way too narrow to be the reason.
I mean just easy pickings, access to birth control likely has a lot more to do with it than pensions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hariseldon

accel

Formerly 'blackcrane'
Sep 11, 2015
827
199
495
Bankrupting Hollywood should be one of the main goals
One more goal should be reminding the Internet giants - who got as big as they are due to the protections from the law predicated on them being neutral carriers - that they have to be neutral, and adding means to monitor that. Google / Youtube / others for some reason think that they are in a position to shape the future in terms of politics - they have to be slapped across the head, and split if needed, because no, they are not.
 

zenspider

Member
May 9, 2016
2,656
1,232
455
Bankrupting Hollywood should be one of the main goals

Get Woke Go Broke meme is a powerful tool

- Terminator
- Charlies Angels
- Star Wars
I’m no fan of woke culture, but I disagree. We’re already facing Disneyfication from the top, we shouldn’t be fighting back with 2-bit low-res memes. Anti-woke is just woke by inference: you don’t change the conversation.

Though I doubt we’ll get it, the struggle should be for more sophistication and higher resolution.

Film has enough bandwidth to be capable of transmitting multi-dimensional thoughts, feelings, multiple perspectives, layers of subtlety above and below the bombast. The industry does not.

In analogy: the Disney model is not concerned with health or nutrition, but with palatability and shelf-life. Here, we, the consumer, should not be asking for vanilla over chocolate - and certainly not a swirl! - but for more substantial, satiating meals.
Eat your greens, finish your plate, and don’t spoil your appetite on junk - that is the mimetic remedy of ‘woke/anti-woke’.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
18,468
37,027
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
I’m no fan of woke culture, but I disagree. We’re already facing Disneyfication from the top, we shouldn’t be fighting back with 2-bit low-res memes. Anti-woke is just woke by inference: you don’t change the conversation.

Though I doubt we’ll get it, the struggle should be for more sophistication and higher resolution.

Film has enough bandwidth to be capable of transmitting multi-dimensional thoughts, feelings, multiple perspectives, layers of subtlety above and below the bombast. The industry does not.

In analogy: the Disney model is not concerned with health or nutrition, but with palatability and shelf-life. Here, we, the consumer, should not be asking for vanilla over chocolate - and certainly not a swirl! - but for more substantial, satiating meals.
Eat your greens, finish your plate, and don’t spoil your appetite on junk - that is the mimetic remedy of ‘woke/anti-woke’.
Brilliantly put.
 

Dontero

Member
Apr 19, 2018
2,159
2,090
565
This is an really interesting idea looking at systemic incentives ‘nudging’ group behavior, but it’s way too narrow to be the reason.
I mean just easy pickings, access to birth control likely has a lot more to do with it than pensions.
Comeone now. People knew how to prevent pregnancy since forever. Sure they didn't have sure ways like we do now but if someone didn't want to get pregnant they didn't. There more of accidents but people knew the risk.

Why we know this ? Because families had 5-6 children instead of 22 or 30. If no one back then knew how pregnancy works then women would be non stop pregnant which clearly was not the case.

What birth control changed was that people were able to have sex outside of marriage.
 

jchap

Member
Jun 12, 2010
5,254
9
685
People don't like being called a racist for every little ideology which doesn't conform with the approved agenda. The anonymity of the voting booth allows them to voice their displeasure without scorn. I do believe this plays a small role in today's political landscape.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hariseldon

zenspider

Member
May 9, 2016
2,656
1,232
455
Comeone now. People knew how to prevent pregnancy since forever. Sure they didn't have sure ways like we do now but if someone didn't want to get pregnant they didn't. There more of accidents but people knew the risk.

Why we know this ? Because families had 5-6 children instead of 22 or 30. If no one back then knew how pregnancy works then women would be non stop pregnant which clearly was not the case.

What birth control changed was that people were able to have sex outside of marriage.
I don’t want to waste time rebutting without understanding your leap in logic: if people knew how to prevent pregnancy “since forever”, then what is exactly is the efficacy in birth control? Why did it change extra-marital sex norms?
 

Dontero

Member
Apr 19, 2018
2,159
2,090
565
if people knew how to prevent pregnancy “since forever”, then what is exactly is the efficacy in birth control? Why did it change extra-marital sex norms?
The efficiency of birth control is in 100% sureness. Secondly condoms only exist for a short while. Go ask you mother or grandmother about birth control and they will explain you easily how they did it.

It changed extra marital sex norms because you had 100% sureness that you won't conceive out of marriage child. Single mothers had it very rough to find marriageable partner. It changed a lot today but back then it was huge thing.
 

zenspider

Member
May 9, 2016
2,656
1,232
455
The efficiency of birth control is in 100% sureness. Secondly condoms only exist for a short while. Go ask you mother or grandmother about birth control and they will explain you easily how they did it.

It changed extra marital sex norms because you had 100% sureness that you won't conceive out of marriage child. Single mothers had it very rough to find marriageable partner. It changed a lot today but back then it was huge thing.
Grandma swears she only had sex the times, but point taken.
You appreciate the seismic culture shift of modern birth control, and you still think it’s pensions that account for the lower birth rate in the first world?

More basically, who thinks about having children as a retirement plan? The people having the sex sure don’t.

Even more basically, people were having plenty of babies before there were jobs, let alone pensions.

Again, it’s a super interesting way to look at systemic influence on behavior today, but if we we’re playing Family Feud, I don’t think “socialism”, as you call it, even makes the board for reasons people in the first world don’t have as many children.
 

Dontero

Member
Apr 19, 2018
2,159
2,090
565
More basically, who thinks about having children as a retirement plan? The people having the sex sure don’t.
I think this is the fundamental question you need answer for. Which also explains earlier statement how birth control is supposedly main reason why people don't have kids.

Ok let us imagine you live in world where socialism didn't take over. You are 20, there is no social security net, there is no pension and only way you can get something for free is your own family and good neighbors.

You are thinking about your situation.
How do you secure yourself for next week, month, year, decade and rest of life.

When you get to old age reasoning you quickly came up with kids. Because there isn't any other way to do it unless you are ultra rich to have servants. Because if you get sick at any point which would require assistance you are going to die.
 

zenspider

Member
May 9, 2016
2,656
1,232
455
I think this is the fundamental question you need answer for. Which also explains earlier statement how birth control is supposedly main reason why people don't have kids.

Ok let us imagine you live in world where socialism didn't take over. You are 20, there is no social security net, there is no pension and only way you can get something for free is your own family and good neighbors.

You are thinking about your situation.
How do you secure yourself for next week, month, year, decade and rest of life.

When you get to old age reasoning you quickly came up with kids. Because there isn't any other way to do it unless you are ultra rich to have servants. Because if you get sick at any point which would require assistance you are going to die.
I am answering that for myself. I am interested in what your saying, but I’d like you to acknowledge that there are reasons more fundamental.

Maybe the better way to put it: family planning can be described as shifting the imperative to reproduce from the biological layer into the social layer - there is no reasoning about having children until there is true, non-superstitious choice in the matter.

If we can start there, and build up to your idea, I think we can have an interesting conversation about the membrane between society and biology.