[Levitz]

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.

[4ggr0]

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.

[tomp]

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.

[quacked]

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.

[simplestats]

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.

[quacked]

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...

[simplestats]

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.

[quacked]

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.