It's just crazy how the left wants to do this. Countless institutions and shows have been targeted by the woke, and now it's Dr. Who - a series that began in the 1960s. I realize that most people naively subscribe to woke ideology because they have misplaced ideals, but there are some people at the top who know what they're doing.
shareThe people at the top are being extorted by a powerful investment company called Blackrock who ended capitalism and replaced it with ESG. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental,_social,_and_governance
shareThe problems usually starts at the top (head of the snake).
shareIt was detailed in old soviet propaganda books, how to dismantle the western society ...
share"The Naked Communist" is a good one. It shows 50 steps on how to destroy America from within, and many of these have come to fruition in the past 60 years.
shareThe USSR was notably socially conservative and would be far closer to the contemporary social conservatism of many republican-types complaining about 'woke' now.
Look at most Eastern-European communist/social democratic remnant parties. They're almost all socially conservative.
The USSR was socially conservative not due to the party policies, which tried to be VERY progressive (dismantling the nuclear family, etc but due to the nature of Russian society, which was a conservative one regardless of the governing system and pushed back against the party progressivism.
https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/soviet-communism-and-strength-family
Yes, it wasn't a direct cut and paste. Although they weren't against the "nuclear family". No idea where you got this from at all. Communism may have impacted how the family was and made it different to the USA, but the USSR were very pro-natalism generally. Keep in mind that the USSR was very different after Lenin died and Stalin took over. They were hardly in the business of the progressive left of today in any case.
share"but the USSR were very pro-natalism"
Do you understand the difference between natalism and family?
Do you understand the difference between party policy/goals and societiy pushback?
"They were hardly in the business of the progressive left of today in any case." yeah, because they observed and accepted the societal pushback.
"Although they weren't against the "nuclear family"
They were, read more.
The liberalization of marriage and divorce was part of a larger program leading to the ultimate “withering away of the family”— that is, of the family as a legal and economic institution.
Even Marx is against family, calling it a bourgeoisie institution.
https://www.csustan.edu/sites/default/files/History/Faculty/Weikart/Marx-Engels-and-the-Abolition-of-the-Family.pdf
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/want-to-dismantle-capitalism-abolish-the-family/
Again, read more.
> yeah, because they observed and accepted the societal pushback.
Sorry, when did the USSR try to do woke things? Examples please.
>The liberalization of marriage and divorce was part of a larger program leading to the ultimate “withering away of the family”— that is, of the family as a legal and economic institution.
Stalin reversed many of these things.
"The history of Russian divorce legislation provides a good illustration of this belief.
Civil divorce was introduced in Russia in 1917. The irretrievable breakdown of
marriage was the ground therefore. When both spouses mutually agreed to divorce,
they could register it in the Department of Registration of Civil Acts. Otherwise
they had to go to court. In 1926 the divorce procedure was simplified even further.
In 1944, however, Stalin made divorce very complicated. Only a court of second
instance could, after a waiting period, grant a divorce if a judge was convinced that
the marriage had irretrievably broken down. It is notable that in spite of all the
dramatic changes which took place in Russian divorce legislation, the available data
on the number of divorces shows almost no fluctuations"
https://ceflonline.net/wp-content/uploads/Russia-Divorce.pdf
"Mothers with families of seven or more children at the date of issue of the present Edict retain the right to receive large family allowances according to the procedure and in the amounts set forth in the decision of the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People’s Commissars of the USSR of June 27, 1936, namely, for the seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth child, 2,000 rubles each annually for five years from the day of the child’s birth, and for each subsequent child-5,000 rubles in a single grant and 3, 000 rubles each annually for four years, beginning with the child’s second year. For every child born after the publication of the present Edict, allowances will be paid in accordance with and in the amounts set forth in the present Article of the Edict."
https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1943-2/love-and-romance-in-war/love-and-romance-in-war-texts/aid-for-mothers-and-children/#:~:text=Mothers%20with%20families%20of%20seven,USSR%20of%20June%2027%2C%201936%2C
What the Communists and communist thinkers said never amounted to much in practice.
Are you again proving that you are dumb or confused or just dishonest???
"Sorry, when did the USSR try to do woke things? Examples please."
"Stalin reversed many of these things."
Really????
Was not USSR USSR before Stalin? Wtf man?
And you are JUST agreeing with me, that after trying to be more progressive before Stalin (and it was still USSR before Stalin) they backed down and went with how society wanted.
Dude, are you THAT dumb?
>Was not USSR USSR before Stalin? Wtf man?
Sure, but Lenins USSR is hardly the fair way to define all of the USSR by. I'd still like to know some of the wokey-progressivey type things they tried, but was reversed.
>And you are JUST agreeing with me, that after trying to be more progressive before Stalin (and it was still USSR before Stalin) they backed down and went with how society wanted.
I mean, there's nothing especially progressive about a one-party state - so I'd dispute the notion it was ever that progressive. And the reforms made were nothing like anywhere near the contemporary woke content so derided (and rightfully so in some cases) by many people here. The idea that the USSR infiltrated western culture in the 1950s onwards to somehow destroy the west is absurd on its face. The west by far, particularly the USA and UK have the biggest media soft power on earth.
How is dismantling the nuclear family progressive in any way?
shareIt's promoted by people that call themselves "progressive".
What's the main purpose of progressivism? Dismantling the present society, sometimes with no plan on how to go forward. Like "defund the police".
Someone's opinion:
1 the nuclear family is fascist, patriarchal and oppressive. And
2 A communist solution where we abolish families. The raising of children would be the responsibility of professional child developers and teachers. In fact, even the childbearing itself could be created in laboratories, bypassing the need for women to go through the pain and hardship of the entire process. These incubators do not currently exist but it is mostly out of ethical reasons they have not been developed. If they did, children could then be raised equally by the system and their talents and interests allowed to develop. If this were the only method allowed to create children (where all citizens would have to be sterilized), the state would then be able to effectively control the population rate, increasing or decreasing as the economy/needs of society dictates. Men and women would then be able to live their lives as connected or disconnected to others, including at work, as they wish without the burden of children. However, they would still need to contribute some amount of work to go towards the raising of children. In turn, all children would be treated equally with truly equal conditions and opportunities.
So you are going to copy and paste something that you got off of Quora that is a lie meant to make Progressives look bad, as though it's an idea of progressives?
That is dishonest at best and extremely dangerous at worst. You are spreading this lie to people who are LOOKING for a reason to hate. When they see a lie like that it becomes truth because it's something that they want to believe so they can vilify an entire party.
So either you are stupid and have been duped or you are knowingly spreading misinformation to be hateful.
Which is it?
Neither. It's just that you are oblivious to the reality and quite ignorant.
That is literally one of the Marxist ideas - the dismantle of the nuclear family.
Marxists see families as essentially a conservative institution that helps to preserve capitalism. They also weaken the position of individual workers in relation to the boss.
They argue that the family socializes children into accepting capitalist values and, through inheritance, perpetuates class divisions. The family is thus considered both a product of the capitalist society and an integral part of its perpetuation. They argue that women's exploitation within the family is due to the fact that women are encouraged to carry our unpaid work within the home. They point out that social policies that claim to benefit the family do so in order to uphold ruling class interests - since the nuclear family raises and socializes the next generation of workers, it benefits capitalism to invest in it. Along with the creation of social class inequalities, Engels claimed that the nuclear family also created gender inequality as men took control of women's sexuality and labor to reproduce and raise the next generations.
Marx said that communism would ensure that children would be educated by the state and not by their parents. Communists, he wrote in the Communist Manifesto, would “rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.” The making of the “New Man” was the priority, and the family was an obstacle.
Look it up.
Marcuse: "The body in its entirety would become . . . a thing to be enjoyed—an instrument of pleasure. This change in the value and scope in libidinal relationships would lead to a disintegration of the institutions in which the private interpersonal relations have been organized, particularly the monogamic and patriarchal family." - do you see the connection to progressivism and the "sexual liberation"?
https://www.heritage.org/marriage-and-family/commentary/socialism-and-family
Don't project your ignorance on me.
Modern Progressivism borrows a lot from Marxist ideology, including the destruction of the nuclear family. Even the nullification of genders and gender roles (which is as progressive as it can be) is an attack toward the traditional, nuclear family. The push for women to focus on a career instead of a family IS a clear example.
Also you can take a look at the results of pushing "progressivism" into society and family.
Examples:
https://memphisdivorce.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Census_MedianAgeFirstMarriage_ms-2-768x576.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c3/Single_parents_in_the_US_over_time_from_1950_to_2020.svg/600px-Single_parents_in_the_US_over_time_from_1950_to_2020.svg.png
I know what Marxism is thanks. It's the RIGHT that accuses progressives of being Marxist but that doesn't make it true, you are acting like it's a fact.
Do you not realize that you've been played by Right wing media?
The progressives in this country don't define themselves as Marxism anymore than Conservatives define themselves with Nazism despite the fact that they borrow some core ideals from Nazis like Nationalism.
Progressives don't want to destroy the family and you need to stop listening to this propaganda it's warping your mind.
Progressivism is a left driven phenomena.
And yeah, it is driven by Marxism. Has all the Marxist propaganda: class war, race war, anti-capitalism, etc.
BLM? It is a progressive organization started by 2 self declared Marxists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgEUbSzOTZ8
"We are trained Marxists".
This is just your deflection and the refusal to see the reality that you live in.
This is NOT right wing media and it is a result of "progressive" ideas and policies.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c3/Single_parents_in_the_US_over_time_from_1950_to_2020.svg/600px-Single_parents_in_the_US_over_time_from_1950_to_2020.svg.png
Also this:
https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/statistical-briefing-book/population/faqs/qa01202
Also:
"U.S. Fertility Rate Drops to Another Historic Low"
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2024/20240525.htm
It's 1.6 now. 1.fucking6
This are FACTS, that you don't want to understand, accept and acknowledge the cause.
Yes, pushing women to strive for a career and shunning the ones that choose a family and the sexual freedom is what progressives do and push for and if you don't see how that hurts the family, well, you're either blind, dishonest or just dumb. And that to just point to one aspect.
Evil cannot create. It can only destroy what's already been made by good people.
shareThis is comical. The vast majority of music, tv shows, movies, video games in the western world etc have been developed, produced, written by people on the left-side of the spectrum (relative to the social norms of society). Alternative music didn't come from christian traditionalists. Punk music didn't derive from social conservatives. Metal music didn't come from them. Most highly regarded narrative-driven video games and tv shows and movies were written by people who would generally be regarded as socially left-of-centre.
This media, by the way, is responsible for the wave of media soft power that both the USA and UK have over the world.
Reactionaries, traditionalists have almost no modern media of any repute to their name.
WRONG. All GOOD music, tv shows, movies, video games in the western world etc have always been CENTRIST, not far left, you corporate shill.
shareI'll await evidence for this claim.
Are you going to claim that punk, for instance, was centrist? Really?
The Ramones invented punk. Here is a song by Joey Ramone about Fox Business channel host Maria Bartiromo.
https://youtu.be/AW5t2mhEj4Q?si=9UC8Gr_EDcT9qn32
What´s happening on Wall St.
What´s happening at the Stock Exchange
I want to know
What´s happening on Squawk Box
What´s happening with my stocks
I want to know
I watch you on the TV every single day
Those eyes make everything okay
I watch her every day
I watch her every night
She´s really outta sight
Maria Bartiromo
Maria Bartiromo
Maria Bartiromo
What´s happening with Yahoo!
What´s happening with AOL
I want to know
What´s happening with Intel
What´s happening with Amazon
I want to know
I watch you on TV every single day
Those eyes make eveything OK
I watch her every day
I watch her every night
She´s really outta sight
Maria Bartiromo [Repeat: x 5]
What´s happening on Wall St.
What´s happening at the Stock Exchange
I want to know
What´s happening on Squawk Box
What´s happening with my stocks
I want to know
I watch her at the big board every single day
While she´s reporting you best stay out of her way
I watch her every day
I watch her every night
She´s really outta sight
Maria Bartiromo [Repeat: x 3]
One of the emergent punk bands. Not sure what you're getting at here. Is this supposed to be some centrist song?
shareFox Business channel is connected to your arch enemy Fox News channel. So Joey Ramone liked the only right wing news channel, he's not one of your left wing scumbags.
shareThe Ramones was not the only Punk band that defined the entire wider subculture of punk, which excluding scenes like ROC - was prominently left-wing/anarchist/anti-authoritarian.
shareThen lets talk about the Sex Pistols and their ANTI abortion song "Bodies." Pretty TRUMPIAN isn't it? Their singer Johnny Rotten supports Trump, now.
https://youtu.be/yzFFtBsl5ps?si=L74syBSoykgq4dP7
She was a girl from Birmingham
She just had an abortion
She was a case of insanity
Her name was Pauline, she lived in a tree
She was a no-one who killed her baby
She sent her letters from the country
She was an animal
She was a bloody disgrace
Body, I'm not an animal
Body, I'm not an animal
Dragged on a table in a factory
Illegitimate place to be
In a packet in a lavatory
Die little baby screaming
Body, screaming, fucking, bloody mess
Not an animal, it's an abortion
Body I'm not an animal
Mummy, mummy, mummy, I'm an abortion
Throbbing squirm, gurgling bloody mess
I'm not a discharge
I'm not a loss in protein
I'm not a throbbing squirm
Ah! Fuck this and fuck that
Fuck it all the fuck out of the fucking brat
She don't wanna a baby that looks like that
I don't wanna a baby that looks like that
Body, I'm not an animal
Body, an abortion
Body, I'm not an animal
Body, I'm not an animal
An animal
I'm not an animal
I'm not an animal, an animal, an-an-an animal
I'm not a body
I'm not an animal, an animal, an-an-an animal
I'm not an animal
Mummy! Uh!
The Sex Pistols, for their time, was leftist and anti-authoritarian.
" In the BBC documentary series Classic Albums (2007) about The Sex Pistols' "Never Mind The Bollocks" album Lydon further said: "That song was hated and loathed. It's not anti-abortion, it's not pro-abortion. It's: 'Think about it. Don't be callous about a human being, but don't be limited about a thing as 'morals' either. Because it's immoral to bring a kid in this world and not give a toss about it.'"
The Clash, Dead Kennedys, Bad Religion, Black Flag, Discharge were all left-leaning politically.
I don't care what Johnny said to calm down you pro abortion leftist lunatics. I can read the lyric "She was an animal She was a bloody disgrace" and understand what the song is about.
share...written by people on the left-side of the spectrum
>Just because an artist is "left wing" doesn't mean they always produce quality work. They are entirely capable of producing mediocre, derivative, yawn-inducing, agenda-driven, nauseating cheesy drivel.
I didn't say they did, but the right are even more non-existent in the entertainment field.
The problem with your comment is you're responding to a point that was never made.
Ah back to your own stalking.
What point that was not made did I reply to? MovieLoader suggested that I thought everything made by the 'woke left' (as he says) is automatically good. This is simply never a claim I ever made.
My actual point (made 6 months ago) was that the left, or liberals, or progressives (choose your descriptor) dominate most forms of contemporary media and more broadly most post-war media when speaking in relative terms. The right, conservatives, reactionaries lag behind badly when it comes to highly-rated contemporary media output. This isn't the same as saying that all left/progressive-orientated media (or media made by those types) is inherently good, but that it's way more common and there are plenty of examples of it being considered good.
🥱
shareamen
share👍👍👋👋✝✝
shareThey realized long ago nobody was watching the low budget woke “critically (only) acclaimed” award-winning films they were making.
So a few years ago someone in Hollywood decided to hijack the extremely popular franchises so they could push their identity and DEI propaganda to the unsuspecting masses.
It didn’t work. Films — and shows — are losing money and audiences are staying away in droves.
>It didn’t work. Films — and shows — are losing money and audiences are staying away in droves.
We're still in a golden age of TV content.
Because they hate you. They really do hate you. If you don't go along with their movement, and their message, they hate you, and then their every action toward you henceforth is done out of spite.
They keep churning out woke "entertainment" which sucks because they are prioritizing a message and an agenda over telling good stories about interesting and relatable characters -- this is by no means unique to wokeness; most explicitly Christian entertainment, for example, sucks for the same reason: it's prioritizing a message over character, plot, and story (it just has a different ideology behind the message). But because the woke entertainment sucks, the movies bomb, or the shows get crappy ratings.
And then the woke creators hate that audiences have rejected their message. This is when they accuse audiences of being -ists, and -phobes, and start talking about "toxic fandom." As The Critical Drinker put it, their attitude is "we know you don't like what we're doing, and we fucking despise you for it, and we're gonna cram it down your throat; all of the stuff you hate, we're gonna dial it up to eleven, and absolutely saturate you with it before we go out. Because we hate you that much."
It's not even debatable at this point; some of them are admitting it. Rafe Judkins, the woke, gay showrunner of The Wheel of Time series, has said of the anti-woke critics: "I’ve dealt with them before and there’s truly only one way to respond — turn their favorite characters gay. Cause I can."
They hate you, and they want to destroy what you love.
I liked The Omega Code with Casper Van Dean. Also the movie called Tribulations starring Gary Busey was really good. Those are two christian films I really liked.
share>They keep churning out woke "entertainment" which sucks because they are prioritizing a message and an agenda over telling good stories about interesting and relatable characters -- this is by no means unique to wokeness; most explicitly Christian entertainment, for example, sucks for the same reason: it's prioritizing a message over character, plot, and story (it just has a different ideology behind the message). But because the woke entertainment sucks, the movies bomb, or the shows get crappy ratings.
What are some of the major examples of 'woke' entertainment?
>And then the woke creators hate that audiences have rejected their message. This is when they accuse audiences of being -ists, and -phobes, and start talking about "toxic fandom." As The Critical Drinker put it, their attitude is "we know you don't like what we're doing, and we fucking despise you for it, and we're gonna cram it down your throat; all of the stuff you hate, we're gonna dial it up to eleven, and absolutely saturate you with it before we go out. Because we hate you that much."
The Critical Drinker has a surface level understanding of modern media. It's actually embarassing.
The majority of his reviews fall into Marvel/Superhero stuff (Spiderverse, Blue Beetle, Guardians of the Galaxy), Franchise (Barbie, Snow White, Peter Pan & Wendy), Generic Action Schlock (Expendables, Mission: Impossible) and Star Wars (Ahsoka, Mandalorian).
Some shows TCD doesn't seem to be aware of: Warrior, Severance, Silo, Babylon Berlin, Pachinko, The Peripheral (unfortunately cancelled), Dopesick, Slow Horses, Station Eleven, The Bear, Black Bird, Devs
Does he just not have Apple TV?
Also it doesn't seem he's ever watched Dark, Black Sails, Mr. Robot, Altered Carbon (S01 was great). No record of Raised by Wolves (this guy like sci-fi or not?) or Foundation (which would probably at least partially annoy him, but it's still sci-fi). A quick search reveals he did watch The Expanse, so this stuff really should be on his radar.
Even if every observation he has made about the MCU, Disney reboots and Star Wars is true... there's just way more to modern TV than this.
Critical Drinker covers mainstream entertainment that people have actually heard of, not the underground gay hipster garbage you love, corporate shill.
shareYou think that Severance is an "underground" show? You think that Altered Carbon is "underground"?
And how is it that I am a corporate shill yet simultaneously encourage people to seek out lesser-known or "underground" content?
I've never seen those shows, they aren't popular and I don't troll their boards but you've never seen Doctor Who yet you compulsively troll this board.
shareThat you haven't seen them doesn't mean they are obscure. And I'd like to know how is it that I am a corporate shill yet simultaneously encourage people to seek out lesser-known or "underground" content? These seem mutually exclusive to me.
And I have actually seen Doctor Who. Years ago.
Altered Carbon was CANCELLED after only 2 years, it's obscure.
shareSo any TV show that gets cancelled becomes obscure? Do you think Westworld is obscure? Was Firefly obscure? The Expanse was technically cancelled. Do you consider that obscure? TCD reviewed that.
Altered Carbon was a big release at the time, and is pretty high budget.
Yes, Firefly, Westworld, and The Expanse are obscure. If you ask a stranger on the street about them, they probably haven't heard of or seen them. Try that with Star Wars and Star Trek, strangers will probably have at least heard of them because they are popular hits. DUH!
share>Yes, Firefly, Westworld, and The Expanse are obscure. If you ask a stranger on the street about them, they probably haven't heard of or seen them. Try that with Star Wars and Star Trek, strangers will probably have at least heard of them because they are popular hits. DUH!
TCD reviewed The Expanse. He's also a sci-fi nerd. Firefly is a huge name in science fiction TV and would be easily recognisable to any nerds.
The point is that TCD has a wafer thin basic exposure level to modern media. He's garbage if you rely on him for recommendations.
"Firefly is a huge name in science fiction TV and would be easily recognisable to any nerds."
^Yes, only known by self identifying NERDS. I never identify as a nerd, I am a sci fi fan. I pity people who see themselves as nerds.
"He's garbage if you rely on him for recommendations."
I don't rely on anyone for recommendations, and TCD isn't someone I watch often.
>^Yes, only known by self identifying NERDS. I never identify as a nerd, I am a sci fi fan. I pity people who see themselves as nerds.
I'm using the word 'nerd' in a broad sense. Most sci-fi fans would know of Firefly.
>I don't rely on anyone for recommendations, and TCD isn't someone I watch often.
Okay then. But he has a basic taste for a supposed critic.
"Most sci-fi fans would know of Firefly."
^There is a huge difference between things that are known only by nerds and sci fi fans and things that are popular and mainstream. DUH!
Severance, by the way, was emmy-nominated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severance_(TV_series)#Accolades
Amongst many other awards. It was not a small show by any means.
TCD hasn't also seemed to have watched The Bear, BCS, Succession or any of the major prestige shows.
Step outside your cat piss smelling apartment, go up to a random stranger, ask them if they've seen Severance or Star Wars. Report back to us and be honest.
shareDo you only listen to chart music? Do you exclusively listen to chart music and then whine about how all modern music sucks?
If you do, then it's your problem. In the modern age one has to do a bit of digging to find more interesting and relevant content. Star Wars sucks now. So fucking what?
I'll also note there's a huge gap between "massively well known" and "obscure". Severance is certainly not obscure. Obscure would be a thriller released from Portugal or something. Severance was written by Ben Stiller and casts Adam Scott and John Turturro.
Report back to us after you've interacted with a human being face to face in the real world. You won't because your delusions would be shattered.
shareYes, more people have heard of Stars Wars than Severance. So? Do you only like to watch things everyone has heard of?
Severance still isn't obscure though.
What are some of the major examples of 'woke' entertainment?
The Critical Drinker has a surface level understanding of modern media. It's actually embarassing.
Also it doesn't seem he's ever watched Dark, Black Sails, Mr. Robot, Altered Carbon (S01 was great). No record of Raised by Wolves (this guy like sci-fi or not?) or Foundation (which would probably at least partially annoy him, but it's still sci-fi). A quick search reveals he did watch The Expanse, so this stuff really should be on his radar.
Even if every observation he has made about the MCU, Disney reboots and Star Wars is true... there's just way more to modern TV than this.
>The current iteration of Doctor Who for one. She Hulk: Attorney at Law. The Marvels. Velma. Queen Cleopatra. The Woman King.
Okay. Do you consider The Last of Us, Heartstopper, Sex Education, Ginny & Georgia, Bridgerton and Euphoria 'woke'?
>So what? Most people with lives to live can only take in a small part of all the entertainment that's out there. No doubt he prioritizes what he watches. If he spends a lot of time commenting on the dire state of shows like Doctor Who and fails to mention The Expanse, that might just have something to do with the fact that Doctor Who has become woke dumpster juice, while the Expanse was pretty good. Ergo, he has a lot to say about the brutalization of a beloved British sci fi franchise that is now more than half a century old, and not much about a recent, well-received, Amazon show that ran for just six seasons.
So he isn't giving an accurate overview of modern media.
TCD *did* mention The Expanse. He liked it a lot. This is what makes the fact that he has not seen all of these sci-fi shows even more glaring.
Also many of the shows I referenced here are not obscure at all. You think Mr. Robot and Severance were obscure?
>Yes, but most of those have not been turned into steaming piles of woke crap, so he doesn't have nearly as much to criticize about them.
So he's being selective and misleading about the state of modern media.
Okay. Do you consider The Last of Us, Heartstopper, Sex Education, Ginny & Georgia, Bridgerton and Euphoria 'woke'?
So he isn't giving an accurate overview of modern media.
So he's being selective and misleading about the state of modern media.
>Couldn't tell you; I haven't watched them. I watch almost no television anymore, and haven't in years.
You may not be a great source for how good or bad modern TV is then.
>See above. Everyone is selective. Nobody has the time to watch and review everything out there, and there is no obligation to do so.
I do expect someone who purports to be a critic to take a step away from capeshit and star wars from time to time. TCD isn't the worst offender here on this, to be fair, but he's far from great.
>And there's nothing remotely misleading about the way he's criticizing modern entertainment for going woke; it has. Not ever single property, no, of course not. But the woke mind virus most certainly is a thing, and it is running rampant in the entertainment industry.
And yet modern TV remains as great as it ever has been.
You may not be a great source for how good or bad modern TV is then.
I do expect someone who purports to be a critic to take a step away from capeshit and star wars from time to time. TCD isn't the worst offender here on this, to be fair, but he's far from great.
And yet modern TV remains as great as it ever has been.
>I never claimed to be a source for anything. I do, however, know woke garbage when I see it.
Sure, and the TV shows you listed there are mostly oft-regarded garbage (She-Hulk, Velma etc) but there's much more to modern TV than them. (The Marvels is a movie, not a TV show - a detail).
>He covers the properties which will get him views, and therefore ad revenue. If he's focusing on those things, it's because it benefits him to do so.
Yeah, so he's a ragebaiter.
>That is your opinion. As such, you are entitled to it. Nonetheless, it remains opinion, not fact, and it's an opinion many do not share.
Based in my experience, on ignorance. They orbit Disney, hitting that same button, wondering why the results aren't changing.
Sure, and the TV shows you listed there are mostly oft-regarded garbage (She-Hulk, Velma etc) but there's much more to modern TV than them. (The Marvels is a movie, not a TV show - a detail).
Yeah, so he's a ragebaiter.
Based in my experience, on ignorance. They orbit Disney, hitting that same button, wondering why the results aren't changing.
>Where did I confine myself to TV? I have been speaking of the entertainment industry as a whole.
Fair enough. Films aren't in a great state I believe, but I don't really watch much of them to make much comment. I believe there are many reasons for this.
>You may not agree with The Critical Drinker's criticisms, or approve of what he chooses to focus on; that does not make him wrong in pointing out the creative failings of those things he criticizes.
He sets out specifically to watch low-hanging fruit that mostly everyone will dislike (although he doesn't always do this) just to get views. The most notable example of this was when he reviewed Robyn Hood - a low effort Canadian network drama that was obviously going to be garbage.
Now he doesn't always do this - he's not like Nerdrotic, for instance. But there's a ton of shows that he really would probably like if he stepped out of his MCU bubble.
>People are entitled to think what they think, like what they like, and consume what they consume. Your particular personal tastes are not the laws of nature.
I didn't say they aren't. But if they haven't watched basically any modern TV, or very little, it's completely reasonable to say they're simply underexposed.
This shouldn't be controversial. Someone who only listens to chart pop music has nowhere near enough exposure about modern music either.
You're an AI bot, aren't you?
It's OK, you can admit it here.
It won't change our low level of respect or interest in you.
A sense of righteousness. It's eerily Christian conservative.
sharethere sure is a lot of bitching and whining going on here and a lot of buzzwords
all this because a black man has been allowed to play the role of Dr Who ?
amazing.
Whats the actual problem again though?
The word woke has no meaning. I've said it time and time again, it's just used as a slogan.
People claim it's when shows push agenda etc. but what they mean is there's a non white character etc.
If woke is being progressive, the show has always done this but they seem to look at earlier stuff with rose tinted glasses
Woke
Umbrella term for individuals who are engrossed by social justice and thinks of themselves as saviors with a moral high ground, but remain willfully ignorant to the irrationality of their claims and the problems they create. These individuals give special treatment to certain minorities in hopes of ending racism and perpetuate mental illnesses as the norm.
"My son's woke kindergarten teacher taught him that he's actually a girl because he played with dolls."
It's both sad and stupid THEY keep pushing that woke is undefineable.
Me thinks it is because their rules of what they are trying to progressively change is a moving goal post THEY can't even keep track of anymore.
It's people complaining about woke that are moving the goal posts.
I've seen many people complain something is woke for daring to have a non white character when it's nothing about trying to be saviours, it's just a non white character.
The same people would seemed to love new who originally would now say Martha was woke for being black if introduced now
But my point is people say things are woke when there is a non white character but no one is trying to say they are saviours, it's just the character isn't white.
For example a lot of people who watched new who and are now saying it's woke, didn't seem to have an issue with Martha being black but if Martha actually came into the show now instead, they would complain that the show was being woke, trying to remove non white characters etc.
That's why it's no one is able to define it because the people using it often contradict themselves. They will call something woke when it's not even came out just because they see someone non white
when really pushed , these idiots will resort to
"we dont mind black characters , but its not well written"
... and then probably start ranting about trannies
WRONG. Was Martha a white character who has been white since 1963, then race swapped in 2006? Nope, stop gaslighting. Race swapping is anti white erasure, BIGOT.
shareHow can you call me a bigot 😂
Explain to me then how people said Bill the companion was woke when the first trailer appeared. The next companion for next year isn't white and people have called that woke before even seeing her. They said the show is anti white but last time I checked Millie Gibson is white.
This is my exact point, a lot of people now scream woke whenever there is a non white character.
"Explain to me then how people said Bill the companion was woke when the first trailer appeared."
^It was a female character who looked trans named Bill. Queer baiting and queer coding is woke. DUH!
"The next companion for next year isn't white and people have called that woke before even seeing her."
^We've seen the new episodes, they've all been ultra woke. Next year will be no different. DUH!
But your basing your opinions on the future.
Bill to me looked like a black female, I didn't think she looked trans and she wasn't so if you think that then it sounds like you have a problem and a biase.
The point I keep saying which none of you anti wokers can ever answer is why didn't you have a problem originally. If a character like Captain Jack Harness appeared now it would be so woke but you act like the show wasn't woke back then, but it always has been, you just ignored it.
And this isn't just doctor who. Lots of anti workers don't seem to have an issue with Ripley being the only survivor in Alien, but if a film like that came out now it would be anti male propaganda because a female had survived over everyone else.
Like don't get me wrong there is bad writing in stuff including doctor who, but it's got to the point any tiny bit of diversity now is classed as woke.
"Fictional alien time travellers can’t be black"
shareIt's interesting that you feel a need to lie about our position.
So what's the problem then? I get disliking the writing, or whatever, plenty of shows have shitty writing. But that he's black? So?
shareWhy did you lie about our position?
shareI fail to see how I lied. If I didn't, and you have no problem with the doctor being portrayed by a black person - what's the problem?
shareYou should know that Guitar King has just confirmed in his response that he clearly has a problem with the doctor being portrayed by a black person. So I didn't lie.
shareBig difference between THE DOCTOR, and "Fictional alien time travellers".
You are a liar. And a gaslighting troll boi. You did lie.
Are you really quibbling about the satirical language I used there? The Doctor is a fictional alien time traveller. That's what I was referring to. Why can he only be a white male?
shareNo, you said "travellerS" before, to support the false narrative that this is some from of racism on our part instead of racism on the part of the woke left.
What makes this particular fictional time traveller somehow different than other fictional time travellers?
How is this racist from the 'woke left'?
The fact that it is a established character, ie Dr Who.
And race flipping this character is clearly racism by the woke left.
>The fact that it is a established character, ie Dr Who.
So? There's nothing written into the character that means it can only be white.
Doctor Who is a time travelling alien. No reason it can't be black.
>And race flipping this character is clearly racism by the woke left.
No, that's just a claim. Not backed up.
He was a white man until the modern woke anti-white racism of your side became a fad.
You might want to play retard and not connect the dots, but dont' expect too many people to play along.
>He was a white man until the modern woke anti-white racism of your side became a fad.
He was also a white woman in the last depiction. He was a white man for so long because UK was a massively majority white country. It's less so now. Nothing in the premise of Doctor Who means he can only be a white man.
The white woman was woke anti-male sexism.
Thank you for admitting that HE was a WHITE MAN.
So, you knew that the character was established as a white man, and yet you pretended to not know that, right above with your talk as though he was just some random time travelling alien.
That's you playing the Hatchling Question game, as has been pointed out by others.
You are a dishonest troll boi, and Dr Who has been established for generations of fans, as a WHITE MALE alien.
That is why he can't be a black guy.
>The white woman was woke anti-male sexism.
Based on what?
>Thank you for admitting that HE was a WHITE MAN.
I don't recall saying otherwise.
>So, you knew that the character was established as a white man, and yet you pretended to not know that, right above with your talk as though he was just some random time travelling alien.
There is nothing in the description of a time travelling alien that means it can only be a white man. There's no reason that changing the race or sex should matter because it's not a real person, or a even a human.
>That's you playing the Hatchling Question game, as has been pointed out by others.
The "Hatchling question game" apparently now refers to me not even asking questions.
>You are a dishonest troll boi, and Dr Who has been established for generations of fans, as a WHITE MALE alien.
"white male alien" lmao. Do you even hear yourself?
It was default depicted as a white man because the source material derived from a country mostly comprised of white people. As the UK population has changed, and non-white people have increased substantially in entertainment in the last 30 years, there was no reason to not consider potential non-white candidates. There's nothing in the concept that means it can only be a white male.
Dude. That's fucking beautiful.
YOu deny admitting that Dr Who was a WHITE MALE character,
and then in the SAME post, admit that he was and explain why it is ok to change that now, because the UK is more diverse.
You are like an almost perfect troll boi cuck.
To be clear, I have seen better. I have seen libs contradict themselves like that is ONE FUCKING SENTENCE.
only a few times that, what you did was still impressive. Just... know that you still have room to grow.
>YOu deny admitting that Dr Who was a WHITE MALE character,
When did I do any such thing? I said the premise of a time-travelling alien doesn't mean it has to be a white male.
>and then in the SAME post, admit that he was and explain why it is ok to change that now, because the UK is more diverse.
It was always okay to change. Just that it became something they considered mostly because of demographic changes in the UK and in the entertainment industry. And more viable non-white actors vying for the role.
You are a dishonest troll boi, and Dr Who has been established for generations of fans, as a WHITE MALE alien.
He was also established as looking like William Hartnell, did you get outraged when they changed that?
'The First Doctor's outfit exudes an Edwardian gentleman's style'
did you get outraged when they changed that?
...all this because a black man has been allowed to play
Whats the actual problem again though?
Why does the far right refuse to get on with the times? You people used to be against ending segregation, to give you an idea how you look.
shareAnswered the question with a question. Cute.
How about you answer first then pose a return question.
Why does the woke left want to destroy everything?
Let's follow a proper order for a functional discussion.
Because when the far left getting aggressive over forcing wokeness on society, everyone who rejects it is perceived as far right.
shareYou could just watch other things.
shareThe true apathy of the left revealed. Dr. Who used to enjoy well over 10m viewers per episode. Now it's less than half that but who cares? Let's continue with our woke agenda of destruction anyway because who gives a toss about public opinion.
shareBarely over 2 million last I heard. And they don't care about doing their job of producing quality tv.
shareHoly crap you're right
https://guide.doctorwhonews.net/info.php?detail=ratings&type=date
"barely over 2 million" = 4 million, apparently
Also, pay attention to the audience share as a percentage in that chart. It's gone down a bit, but it's showing that viewing figures are declining anyway. The overall figures of the latest Doctor Who do not include catchup yet. It's overnight views.
Numbers I saw were probably early ones not showing "catchup" as you put it.
They are still terrible.
As an overall share of the audience, they aren't: https://guide.doctorwhonews.net/info.php?detail=ratings&type=date
Pay attention to the audience share as a percentage in that chart. It's gone down a bit on average, but it's showing that viewing figures are declining anyway. The overall figures of the latest Doctor Who do not include catchup yet. It's overnight views.
So, people are NOT WATCHING IT, as you requested. And that is a continuing trend as they keep putting out woke trash instead of what the fans want.
sharePeople are watching less and less TV in general. That's the point. So the real numbers of everything is declining. Doctor Who is competing with way more than it was in the 00s. And maybe the writing is declining, but that's separate to the specific casting of this new doctor.
In the UK, no-one gave a fuck about the casting when it happened.
Maybe no one said anthing. I'm sure that some people are aware enough to realize they are being insulted.
Most are probably too afraid to say anything.
>Maybe no one said anthing. I'm sure that some people are aware enough to realize they are being insulted.
So you're just assuming. I live here, you don't.
Don't dictate to me about my country.
>Most are probably too afraid to say anything.
No, they aren't. The usual far-right rags said shit. But on the whole, the population did not care.
Oh, so a minute ago you said no one cared.
Now you admit that "the usual far-right rags said shit".
How hilarious.
>Now you admit that "the usual far-right rags said shit".
Yes, not representative of the population.
Obviously out of 66 million people, a % will care. But they're a minority.
First you said "no one". Now you say, " a minority".
Shit talker.
I was accused of taking people literally by another user. Are you doing it too?
I'll amend since you apparently take everything literally: Most people in the UK, a clear majority, could not care that the latest incarnation of the Doctor was black.
Far-right types, about as representative as far-left outlets are in the USA (for instance), kicked up a storm. But so what?
You do realise that terrestrial TV is much less viewed than it used to be, right? People watch things on catch-up after it has been broadcast. It is still amongst the top of the most-watched programs when an episode drops in the UK.
The point is that Doctor Who is not the only TV show on earth. If you don't like how it has developed, watch other things.
The point is that Doctor Who is not the only TV show on earth. If you don't like how it has developed, watch other things.
>Yeah yeah yeah. You could offer that retort to anyone who yammers on about diversity, inclusivity, cultural appropriation, insensitivity, or any of the other standard wokey blather. Yet the acceptability of such a glib response obviously depends upon the races, genders, etc., involved. White people, or in general fans of the old Dr. Who show, who don't like the current turn, what to say about them?
Cope and seethe?
People in the UK don't really care that strongly about this.
>"Shut up and watch something else, you whiner."
Yes. It's a TV show.
People in the UK don't really care that strongly about this.
I meant specifically people in the UK don't care about the Doctor Who casting of Ncuti Gatwa.
With other issues, it's different, although hate speech legislation is not a major issue on the campaign trail right now
He’s not out of touch, he’s just a shit gaslighter. Everyone hates the latest hideously woke iteration of Dr Who despite the best efforts of wokists like Skavau to convince you otherwise.
I am specifically referring to the decision to cast Ncuti Gatwa. Most people in the UK did not care.
Whether or not the writing of the new Doctor Who is liked or isn't liked isn't relevant to that point.