Hard to answer, you might as well ask "what exactly does this not very defined group want?".

Let's take feminism for example, which is generally considered as pertaining to woke culture, what do feminists want? Well you have sex-positive feminists, sex-negative feminists, you've got the ones that want to legalize sex work, the ones who don't, abortion at every stage no matter the circumstance, abortion in hospitals depending on term, trans inclusive, trans exclusive, men inclusive, men exclusive, men-can-only-be-allies... And I'm not even mentioning different waves of feminism.

It's hard to nail down what it pushes, exactly, but I'd say that a focus on identity politics as opposed to economic issues is a constant. A character existing solely because of their identity, disregarding if it adds anything is, I'd say, peak wokeism.

And I've no doubt many will disagree with that, as some others will with any other take.

To add to your points, as much as people may use identity politics to realize their interests, I think we should not forget the people who label simple and needed social changes as identity politics and peak wokeism, just because they disagree with said changes.

As an example, some people think that showing homosexual people in media is part of some wokeist agenda, just virtue signalling and an act of identity politics.

I guess to sum it up, we should probably stop using such general terms and just explain what we think in a couple of sentences. I guess that's where Twitter can be blamed a bit, when you don't have the space to thoroughly explain what you think, you have to resort to abbrevations and single words, in turn making it more confusing for everyone.

Typical moat-and-bailey pro-woke argument.

Can you list any media (mainstream news, or Hollywood) that are promoting sex-negative or trans exclusive views?

There is no discussion or dissenting views allowed for most “woke” people.

Fox News in the US. I agree mostly with your point that the film industry and the majority of print and cable news falls in line with progressive/leftist/"woke" talking points, but Fox is an absolutely massive propaganda vehicle with dozens of millions of daily viewers. They regularly promote trans-exclusive views.

I'd say Fox exists as a reaction against the left-leaning bias of media. If audiences want anti-woke content all day (or conspiracy theories, or commie-stomping superagents, or...) I don't think a business that chases ratings and profits by giving it to them is fairly described as propaganda. Entertainment is commonly centered on the fears of its audience.

I don't think there's any difference in most entertainment and propaganda. The "official" definition of "propaganda" is:

> Information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

I would say that almost all entertainment is of a biased nature and is used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

Pamphlets about the end of the world and Christianity--propaganda. The Glenn Beck show--propaganda. NYT editorials about defunding the police--propaganda. Tucker Carlson--propaganda. Joe Biden's Twitter account--propaganda. Portrayals of white men as problematic or evil in Netflix shows--propaganda. Portrayals of black men as problematic or evil in archaic books, shows, movies, etc.--propaganda.

Edit:

I realize I sound a little unhinged. Let me try to be more clear about my point.

If media is deployed with the intent to promote or distribute a worldview, I think it is propaganda. Fox News meets the definition of propaganda because it promotes the worldview "cable news, specifically Fox News, is a source of authority". The fact that it is entertainment is not relevant to its status as propaganda; it gains that status by having a perfect propaganda-like effect on the public. The content of the media that's consumed by the public is less important than what the public believes about the sources putting out the media, and what authority the public lends to the media it consumes.

Here is an article by an anonymous psychiatrist who writes a great deal about how the effect of media is less related to the content, and more related to how media dissemination of information infects and shapes its viewers' model of reality. They are taught how to learn, rather than what to learn, and the how always includes "more listening to the source putting out the information".

https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/04/im_not_the_one_you_s...

Yeah I can certainly agree that some would use a broad definition of propaganda.

But it's a very loaded word. One should avoid using loaded words where a less emotional description is applicable. One could as well argue that the use of loaded words is propaganda itself.

I argue both of those points, and that's why I specifically choose loaded words. I am spreading my own version of propaganda, because I want people to hold a certain set of political beliefs.

You could say "Fox News is a conglomerate of acting/direction/production teams managed by a central financial-focused corporate structure who release carefully curated entertainment segments in order to maximize views from certain demographics", and then describe its effects by saying "People who unironically consume and believe what is said by Fox News representatives typically end up believing verifiably false information".

That would be a very emotionless and more strictly accurate phrase to say than "Fox News is one of the propaganda arms of the broadcast media cartel", which is how I would say it.

Unfortunately, saying it your way allows people to believe they understand it and are protected from its effects. This is not true, in the same way that people are not protected from the propaganda-like effects of advertising just because they can see an ad and not immediately want to go buy the target product.

Fox News is not benign entertainment; do not underestimate its handlers so.

"Woke" is simply the left's word for what the right calls 'Redpilled'. In both subcultures it means 'a recognition of some fundamental truth that does not bring joy'.

Done well, it can be a vehicle for criticising one's own culture in a constructive way. Done poorly, it can be a vehicle for oikophobia and gatekeeping, a means of distinguishing oneself from the naively patriotic proletariate.

> "Woke" is simply the left's word

I see it used much more on the right, such as in the comment that started this subthread.

EDIT: But otherwise, I think that's an excellent definition.

I've actually only seen it used on the right, nearly always by friends or family who constantly read the news, always in a derogatory sense. Was it common on the left at some point?

Yes, it originated there, though I guess it didn't last very long. It's a common rhetorical tactic used by partisans on the right - use the other side's own terminology to describe it, always with a tone of disgust, and repeat it until the sound of it becomes grating. "Social Justice Warrior" was similarly exclusively used by people describing their own political convictions when I first encountered the term.

I'd say both sides make the other side's terminology into epithets. But mostly only the left seems to take it personally and stop using the word. Meanwhile the right will continue to embrace being labelled by what the left treats as epithets. Maybe it has something to do with individualism which is a sort of rebellious mindset on the right.

I just realised an interesting symmetry - The right is more successful at loading the left's own terminology with negative connotations, while the left is more successful at adjusting definitions of shared language. I wonder whether this has something to do with the implicit communication styles of the respective tribes... Any theories?

“Woke” has quickly gone the way of “liberal” and become an insult. It was a stupid word anyway so I don’t mind if it just goes away.

I pity people who use "woke" as an insult.

It’s been a very long time since I have heard somebody use this word in a positive context.

This seems absolutely incorrect.

Seems strange to me, too.

Red Pilled is used in contexts where someone starts seeing the hidden truth the elites want to hide from them etc. Woke in my experience is more used to describe progressive people and their opinions, without having anything to do with some hidden secrets or other such things.

I honestly don't understand how you can't see that "being woke" is synonymous with being aware of facts that other don't see. Literally derived from "awake" and there by seeing the truth correctly.

One way or the other you might be having a difficult time seeing that they're both essentially propaganda, but its just the mirror image of the same thing.

The hidden secret is the life - the oppressive discrimination - many minorities, especially black persons, have been experiencing for generations, without most white people being aware of it. When you take that red pill, when you are open to the facts, it is shocking what has been happening right under our noses. You can't unsee it. A simple suggestion: Just talk about it with people who are black; if you don't know many, you can see how the blue pill world is created.

> Woke in my experience is more used to describe progressive people and their opinions

Like any hot cultural term, it has become loaded with plenty of other meaning. However, to a degree I think you are talking about the reactionaries' use of the word, which they have adopted to politicize it - to use their endless (and successful) rhetorical technique of attacking the messenger; of saying 'it's just liberals' to shift the discussion from the actual problem, racism. For example, you can see the same technique used for climate change.

I first read it as in “stay woke”, a reminder that your survival depends on seeing through people’s bullshit.

And the most harmful bullshit is that racism is a personal failing rather than a system working as designed; designed by people who will not peacefully let it go.

> the most harmful bullshit is that racism is a personal failing rather than a system working as designed; designed by people who will not peacefully let it go.

Yes, an essential point. But it's also a personal choice.

> I think you are talking about the reactionaries' use of the word

That's a fair point, yeah.

> When you take that red pill, when you are open to the facts, it is shocking what has been happening right under our noses

I think the problem there for me personally is, that "being red-pilled" was kinda adopted by the right wing, so I would never label myself red-pilled when I learn what kinds of things black people experience because of being who they are. But yeah, if we keep current politics out of our context, then I get what is meant with being red-pilled.

So essentially, red-pilled means "I learned(or at least think so) something which the mainstream(god I hate that word in the political context) does not know."

Furthermore, if what you think you've learned is objectively true, then you were red-pilled, if it's objectively wrong you just invented a new conspiracy theory.

> So essentially, red-pilled means "I learned(or at least think so) something which the mainstream(god I hate that word in the political context) does not know."

I think the definition is narrower. I think it's something that completely shifts your persecptive, that is relvelatory. I know things about certain policy issues that the mainstream doesn't - or about IT, but it's not the same.

> if what you think you've learned is objectively true, then you were red-pilled, if it's objectively wrong you just invented a new conspiracy theory.

This is the nature of all knowledge - there is no way around thinking critically, using all the skills (empiricism, post-modernism, etc.); it's never easy.

My first encounter of the red/blue pill dichotomy was the first Matrix film. With social media like reddit, this idea spawned via memesis and certain communities began imitating their interpretations of what it meant for them. For example, the contrasts between r/theredpill and r/thebluepill and all the other subs it may have spawned as well, eg: r/mgtow.

Richard Dawkin's wrote a fantastic book called The Selfish Gene on exploring the difference between memetic and mimetic theory that's worth the read.

Redpill in the conservative context so often involves replacement theory.

>>What exactly does this woke agenda push, if I may ask?

I don't know anymore.

In some circles / historically it is used to denote liberal/progressive agenda. It's sometimes (often?) meant to be negative/slur, just like some people will use "Socialist!!!" believing it a derogatory term.

However, increasingly it's used as generic term in various conspiracy circles - "Wake up to the truth!" transmogrified to "Woke!". So Woke will be claimed by those who understand the truth about Illuminati/Freemasons/Rothchilds/Vaccines/5G/EM/Israel/etcetcetc.

So between whatever original use there may have been designed, vs today's actual usage on the interwebs, I don't personally find it a useful nomenclature that I can interpret on its own with any degree of confidence. 90% of the time I find it in short rambling sentences of the format of either "Their pushing their fascist woke agenda!!!" or "be woke, don't be sheeple". I generally don't find the term used in any discussion that ends up being in any way productive or enlightening.

(note also my experience that, anybody using it, in any of the above and myriad other senses/terms, will strongly believe their is the only obvious correct usage and resent the notion that there's lack of clarity)

I don't have anything to add to this, but you elaborately replied to me so I think you also deserve a reply - I agree with your comment 100%.

> you might be racist

Please stop this. Every instance of someone referencing something that originated from a culture other than their own is not "appropriation" or "racism".

They're not talking about mere referencing, though. The problem is one of intentional redefinition in an attempt to counteract a movement. And indeed, the motivation for doing so is often racism.

"Woke" is a word, which describes/refers to a concept. The use of the word may be culturally and temporally specific (and that usage, like all use of language, may change over time), but the concept is one found in many different cultures and communities across time and space - put simply and broadly, the notion that one needs to "wake up" or "awaken" to what is actually happening. There are ways of describing this in many different languages. So while the current use of the word "woke" within the US may indeed be traced back to the African American community, the concept/idea has a much longer and broader history than that.

White supremacists are specifically attacking the 'black liberation' definition because it gained a worrying amount of traction among the global youth and the ruling class is not happy about that.

It's not a coincidence that the establishment in other major genocidal powers (ZA, AU, and UK) jumped on the anti-woke train early on to assist the US in fighting/redefining the concept.

Reminds me of a quote from a history prof, "The main problem with black history is it exposes too much of the fraud in white history... "

> you might be racist

On the contrary, I asked OP because often times when people talk about woke-agendas, they mean "I don't like seeing black or gay people in my movies", so I tend to wonder what they mean when they say woke.

'Woke' _primarily_ means roused from sleep.

Every other usage is metaphoric drift from that.

Casual and false accusations of racism are as wrong as racism itself.

>'Woke' _primarily_ means roused from sleep.

>Every other usage is metaphoric drift from that.

The global cultural influence of African Americans is massive, possibly bigger than any other single group in the US, even after centuries of gatekeeping. A notable style trait of Ebonics is purposely butchering English grammar.

Are you claiming you would use the past tense of 'wake' as the present tense (as in 'stay woke') without African Americans popularizing it? This may be the strangest claim I've heard recently.

BTW, redefining established civil rights concepts to undermine the people and movements tied to them is extremely racist...