|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on May 27, 2023 3:08:54 GMT
False. "Woke" is ideology taken to an extreme, dictator level. Recent stories have tried to make him, or anyone who carries the mantle, as such, but Captain America was originally created as a non-partisan heroic character who has no political allegiance because he values democracy over parties. In most of his publication history, rarely ever took sides on political issues because he didn't think it was his job to do so. In one instance when a friend of his campaigned for office he went around supporting him as Steve Rogers not suited up as Captain America, and he says to someone that he votes for the person not the party. His actions, beliefs, and attitudes range from conservative to libertarian to democrat depending on the situation, a running gag is that his ideals are considered old fashioned by his peers. Woke = Aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)
That's all. Anything else is just nonsense cooked up by Reactionaries.
Cap's first story has an image of him punching out Hitler. You don't get more blatant than that.
I mean, given how the last 20 years of propaganda have brainwashed the masses to think "Terrorist" = "Irredeemable Evil" I suppose this reaction was inevitable.
Woke used to mean that, but not anymore. When you have the activists of today equate anyone that doesn't see eye to eye with them on certain topics to a particular group of World War II you know society isn't progressing for the better. If memory serves, Steve Rogers was seen as problematic for a while because he was straight, white, male, and had views that were seen as too old fashioned by a loud minority of consumers so they wrote him to be Hydra Supreme, but apparently not that many were buying into that concept so they retconned the idea and made that version a variant instead. The Flag Smashers were definitely not heroes in the television series and did serious damage at times, but this is all bait for yet another endless trap.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on May 27, 2023 3:11:10 GMT
I don't know about it being "woke" (where ideology is taken to an extreme, dictator level), but that Wilson said to the UN officials to not refer to the Flag Smashers as terrorists despite the fact that they were committing acts of terrorism that lead to the deaths of innocent people. His point about them doing better could've still been made, but still acknowledge the criminal actions of the Flag Smashers. The speech reads and sounds ideologically confusing. Sam's reaction was emotional to be sure. From his perspective he's listening to a man label the Flag-Smashers as terrorists without any interests in their grievances. In a way, Sam was responding to his tone of disinterest, but as the UN official pointed out in his rebuttal, the people who came back from the dead have rights too. So it seemed to me that, as Sam himself might have put it from an earlier episode, the UN guy was out of line but he's right. That stalled Sam's lecture, but I think the point Sam was making is that the terrorist label excuses the UN from having to address the Flag-Smashers as anything but mindless thugs when in fact they're more than that. The reason I don't think it was ideological or "woke" is because Sam balanced criticizing the UN's use of labels without condoning the Flag-Smasher's criminal actions.
That's what I think is most important about Sam's speech. He's not condoning the acts, he's just saying it's not as simple as that. Furthermore though, the UN guy cited the rights of the returned, which is the other side of it's not that simple, and by doing that, the show didn't make Sam the sole voice of right. He made good points but he has flaws in his reasoning too.
I must say that this has been one of the best defenses made for the speech in at the end of the finale, even better than what the people involved in the series have said.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on May 27, 2023 3:44:01 GMT
Woke = Aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)
That's all. Anything else is just nonsense cooked up by Reactionaries.
Cap's first story has an image of him punching out Hitler. You don't get more blatant than that.
I mean, given how the last 20 years of propaganda have brainwashed the masses to think "Terrorist" = "Irredeemable Evil" I suppose this reaction was inevitable.
Woke used to mean that, but not anymore. When you have the activists of today equate anyone that doesn't see eye to eye with them on certain topics to a particular group of World War II you know society isn't progressing for the better. If memory serves, Steve Rogers was seen as problematic for a while because he was straight, white, male, and had views that were seen as too old fashioned by a loud minority of consumers so they wrote him to be Hydra Supreme, but apparently not that many were buying into that concept so they retconned the idea and made that version a variant instead. The Flag Smashers were definitely not heroes in the television series and did serious damage at times, but this is all bait for yet another endless trap. No, the meaning never changed. The smear campaign against it by the Reactionaries doesn't change that.
It's the activists who are the ones condemned, it's not different from McCarthyism.
Never happened. Steve being turned into a Hydra Agent was just a typical ploy to drive a silly story.
Yes, that's usually how Revolutionaries are written off. If they win, they're heroes...if they fail then the victors can just say they were terrorists.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on May 27, 2023 3:58:27 GMT
Woke used to mean that, but not anymore. When you have the activists of today equate anyone that doesn't see eye to eye with them on certain topics to a particular group of World War II you know society isn't progressing for the better. If memory serves, Steve Rogers was seen as problematic for a while because he was straight, white, male, and had views that were seen as too old fashioned by a loud minority of consumers so they wrote him to be Hydra Supreme, but apparently not that many were buying into that concept so they retconned the idea and made that version a variant instead. The Flag Smashers were definitely not heroes in the television series and did serious damage at times, but this is all bait for yet another endless trap. No, the meaning never changed. The smear campaign against it by the Reactionaries doesn't change that.
It's the activists who are the ones condemned, it's not different from McCarthyism.
Never happened. Steve being turned into a Hydra Agent was just a typical ploy to drive a silly story.
Yes, that's usually how Revolutionaries are written off. If they win, they're heroes...if they fail then the victors can just say they were terrorists.
Bait, bait, bait, bait...No bite. Entertain yourself.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on May 27, 2023 13:17:07 GMT
No, the meaning never changed. The smear campaign against it by the Reactionaries doesn't change that.
It's the activists who are the ones condemned, it's not different from McCarthyism.
Never happened. Steve being turned into a Hydra Agent was just a typical ploy to drive a silly story.
Yes, that's usually how Revolutionaries are written off. If they win, they're heroes...if they fail then the victors can just say they were terrorists.
Bait, bait, bait, bait...No bite. Entertain yourself. This whole McCarthy-esque attitude towards anyone who isn't a Hardcore Conservative is going to end sooner or later.
|
|
|
Post by Cat on May 27, 2023 16:16:04 GMT
Sam's reaction was emotional to be sure. From his perspective he's listening to a man label the Flag-Smashers as terrorists without any interests in their grievances. In a way, Sam was responding to his tone of disinterest, but as the UN official pointed out in his rebuttal, the people who came back from the dead have rights too. So it seemed to me that, as Sam himself might have put it from an earlier episode, the UN guy was out of line but he's right. That stalled Sam's lecture, but I think the point Sam was making is that the terrorist label excuses the UN from having to address the Flag-Smashers as anything but mindless thugs when in fact they're more than that. The reason I don't think it was ideological or "woke" is because Sam balanced criticizing the UN's use of labels without condoning the Flag-Smasher's criminal actions.
That's what I think is most important about Sam's speech. He's not condoning the acts, he's just saying it's not as simple as that. Furthermore though, the UN guy cited the rights of the returned, which is the other side of it's not that simple, and by doing that, the show didn't make Sam the sole voice of right. He made good points but he has flaws in his reasoning too.
I must say that this has been one of the best defenses made for the speech in at the end of the finale, even better than what the people involved in the series have said. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by Power Ranger on May 31, 2023 12:10:35 GMT
Woke cap is the best cap! If they try Woke Cap at the cinema it will be Broke Cap.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on May 31, 2023 23:08:55 GMT
Woke cap is the best cap! If they try Woke Cap at the cinema it will be Broke Cap. Woke Cap...just like in Winter Soldier and Civil War and Infinity War and Endgame?
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Jun 6, 2023 12:32:57 GMT
The film is now called Captain America: Brave New World.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jun 6, 2023 15:49:03 GMT
Great, how long before we get jokes about this?
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jun 6, 2023 21:19:49 GMT
I don't know about it being "woke" (where ideology is taken to an extreme, dictator level), but that Wilson said to the UN officials to not refer to the Flag Smashers as terrorists despite the fact that they were committing acts of terrorism that lead to the deaths of innocent people. His point about them doing better could've still been made, but still acknowledge the criminal actions of the Flag Smashers. The speech reads and sounds ideologically confusing. Sam's reaction was emotional to be sure. From his perspective he's listening to a man label the Flag-Smashers as terrorists without any interests in their grievances. In a way, Sam was responding to his tone of disinterest, but as the UN official pointed out in his rebuttal, the people who came back from the dead have rights too. So it seemed to me that, as Sam himself might have put it from an earlier episode, the UN guy was out of line but he's right. That stalled Sam's lecture, but I think the point Sam was making is that the terrorist label excuses the UN from having to address the Flag-Smashers as anything but mindless thugs when in fact they're more than that. The reason I don't think it was ideological or "woke" is because Sam balanced criticizing the UN's use of labels without condoning the Flag-Smasher's criminal actions.
That's what I think is most important about Sam's speech. He's not condoning the acts, he's just saying it's not as simple as that. Furthermore though, the UN guy cited the rights of the returned, which is the other side of it's not that simple, and by doing that, the show didn't make Sam the sole voice of right. He made good points but he has flaws in his reasoning too.
Don't know if I can agree with this. This interpretation is based, I believe, on your own views and shows us more your own personal mindset. In other words, your interpretation of what happened in that scene seems reasonable mostly because you're a reasonable person and prefer to view it in a reasonable light. But I don't believe the scene itself did anything to promote what you mentioned from a purely objective point of view. For the casual viewer, the scene just looked like Sam blaming the UN for what happened and removing a lot of the blame from the Flagsmahers themselves. While what the UN guy said makes sense and provides some defense to their actions, and while Sam's lines do try to provoke deeper thinking than simply pointing a finger, the scene itself was clearly set-up in such a way as to garner sympathy for the flagsmashers while painting the UN Government as definitely "in the wrong".
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Jun 6, 2023 21:51:35 GMT
Sam's reaction was emotional to be sure. From his perspective he's listening to a man label the Flag-Smashers as terrorists without any interests in their grievances. In a way, Sam was responding to his tone of disinterest, but as the UN official pointed out in his rebuttal, the people who came back from the dead have rights too. So it seemed to me that, as Sam himself might have put it from an earlier episode, the UN guy was out of line but he's right. That stalled Sam's lecture, but I think the point Sam was making is that the terrorist label excuses the UN from having to address the Flag-Smashers as anything but mindless thugs when in fact they're more than that. The reason I don't think it was ideological or "woke" is because Sam balanced criticizing the UN's use of labels without condoning the Flag-Smasher's criminal actions.
That's what I think is most important about Sam's speech. He's not condoning the acts, he's just saying it's not as simple as that. Furthermore though, the UN guy cited the rights of the returned, which is the other side of it's not that simple, and by doing that, the show didn't make Sam the sole voice of right. He made good points but he has flaws in his reasoning too.
Don't know if I can agree with this. This interpretation is based, I believe, on your own views and shows us more your own personal mindset. In other words, your interpretation of what happened in that scene seems reasonable mostly because you're a reasonable person and prefer to view it in a reasonable light. But I don't believe the scene itself did anything to promote what you mentioned from a purely objective point of view. For the casual viewer, the scene just looked like Sam blaming the UN for what happened and removing a lot of the blame from the Flagsmahers themselves. While what the UN guy said makes sense and provides some defense to their actions, and while Sam's lines do try to provoke deeper thinking than simply pointing a finger, the scene itself was clearly set-up in such a way as to garner sympathy for the flagsmashers while painting the UN Government as definitely "in the wrong". What do you not agree with?
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jun 7, 2023 1:04:47 GMT
Sam's reaction was emotional to be sure. From his perspective he's listening to a man label the Flag-Smashers as terrorists without any interests in their grievances. In a way, Sam was responding to his tone of disinterest, but as the UN official pointed out in his rebuttal, the people who came back from the dead have rights too. So it seemed to me that, as Sam himself might have put it from an earlier episode, the UN guy was out of line but he's right. That stalled Sam's lecture, but I think the point Sam was making is that the terrorist label excuses the UN from having to address the Flag-Smashers as anything but mindless thugs when in fact they're more than that. The reason I don't think it was ideological or "woke" is because Sam balanced criticizing the UN's use of labels without condoning the Flag-Smasher's criminal actions.
That's what I think is most important about Sam's speech. He's not condoning the acts, he's just saying it's not as simple as that. Furthermore though, the UN guy cited the rights of the returned, which is the other side of it's not that simple, and by doing that, the show didn't make Sam the sole voice of right. He made good points but he has flaws in his reasoning too.
Don't know if I can agree with this. This interpretation is based, I believe, on your own views and shows us more your own personal mindset. In other words, your interpretation of what happened in that scene seems reasonable mostly because you're a reasonable person and prefer to view it in a reasonable light. But I don't believe the scene itself did anything to promote what you mentioned from a purely objective point of view. For the casual viewer, the scene just looked like Sam blaming the UN for what happened and removing a lot of the blame from the Flagsmahers themselves. While what the UN guy said makes sense and provides some defense to their actions, and while Sam's lines do try to provoke deeper thinking than simply pointing a finger, the scene itself was clearly set-up in such a way as to garner sympathy for the flagsmashers while painting the UN Government as definitely "in the wrong". That's your POV, which you're entitled to. The UN definitely weren't in the right 100% though.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jun 7, 2023 16:45:31 GMT
Don't know if I can agree with this. This interpretation is based, I believe, on your own views and shows us more your own personal mindset. In other words, your interpretation of what happened in that scene seems reasonable mostly because you're a reasonable person and prefer to view it in a reasonable light. But I don't believe the scene itself did anything to promote what you mentioned from a purely objective point of view. For the casual viewer, the scene just looked like Sam blaming the UN for what happened and removing a lot of the blame from the Flagsmahers themselves. While what the UN guy said makes sense and provides some defense to their actions, and while Sam's lines do try to provoke deeper thinking than simply pointing a finger, the scene itself was clearly set-up in such a way as to garner sympathy for the flagsmashers while painting the UN Government as definitely "in the wrong". What do you not agree with? I disagree with this part: I'm saying the show actually did make Sam the sole voice of right. Yeah, the UN guy got to give his reasons but you'll notice that Sam cut him off fairly early on in that scene, and for the rest of the speech they were completely silent while Sam gave his take. The UN personnel were made to look contrite and guilty, not even able to meet Sam's eyes. The camera pans around the rest of the people listening and all of them seem to be agreeing or at the very least gaining new insight from what Sam is saying. I'm saying the scene is set-up so that it's clearly portraying Sam as right and the UN personnel as wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Jun 7, 2023 16:57:04 GMT
What do you not agree with? I disagree with this part: I'm saying the show actually did make Sam the sole voice of right. Yeah, the UN guy got to give his reasons but you'll notice that Sam cut him off fairly early on in that scene, and for the rest of the speech they were completely silent while Sam gave his take. The UN personnel were made to look contrite and guilty, not even able to meet Sam's eyes. The camera pans around the rest of the people listening and all of them seem to be agreeing or at the very least gaining new insight from what Sam is saying. I'm saying the scene is set-up so that it's clearly portraying Sam as right and the UN personnel as wrong. The UN guy citing the rights of the returned stopped Sam in his tracks. Sam had to pause and think about it. I don't see how the scene sets up the UN guy as wrong when his counterpoint to Sam is valid.
It depends I reckon on what you mean by right or wrong. Are you talking positions or attitudes? No doubt the scene cast the UN guy as inconsiderate, but that's not the same as being completely wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Jun 7, 2023 17:13:11 GMT
I don't honestly don't see what the issue is, unless you think the UN should be free of critisms.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jun 7, 2023 18:57:28 GMT
I don't honestly don't see what the issue is, unless you think the UN should be free of critisms. I think that 1. Karli and the Flagsmashers should definitely be called terrorists based on what they did. Yes they had their own reasons for what they did but so too did every other villain in the MCU. You don't see the movies trying to not call them villains. 2. Sam should not really criticize unless he has a better solution to suggest, because it just makes him look preachy and hypocritical. This is more a failing of the writers. Yes the UN should be criticized, but the writers should have been smart enough to give an actual compromise or at the very least, shine an equal light on both sides of the argument so that people can appreciate the dilemma (like how Civil War was handled). In Sam's speech, there was no compromise, no alternative solution, no equal representation of both sides of the argument. It's basically him pointing a finger at the UN and saying "you should do better" and that was it.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jun 7, 2023 18:59:59 GMT
I disagree with this part: I'm saying the show actually did make Sam the sole voice of right. Yeah, the UN guy got to give his reasons but you'll notice that Sam cut him off fairly early on in that scene, and for the rest of the speech they were completely silent while Sam gave his take. The UN personnel were made to look contrite and guilty, not even able to meet Sam's eyes. The camera pans around the rest of the people listening and all of them seem to be agreeing or at the very least gaining new insight from what Sam is saying. I'm saying the scene is set-up so that it's clearly portraying Sam as right and the UN personnel as wrong. The UN guy citing the rights of the returned stopped Sam in his tracks. Sam had to pause and think about it. I don't see how the scene sets up the UN guy as wrong when his counterpoint to Sam is valid.
It depends I reckon on what you mean by right or wrong. Are you talking positions or attitudes? No doubt the scene cast the UN guy as inconsiderate, but that's not the same as being completely wrong.
Sam paused but it didn't stop him. He continued to give his speech WITHOUT addressing the point the UN personnel made. And he gave a fairly long speech after that point without it ever being addressed again. As for right and wrong, I'm not talking about what you or me define as right or wrong, I'm talking about how the scene was set-up so that it was clearly favoring Sam's take over the UN's. After all, who got to do almost all the talking? Who had contrite looks on their faces? Who looked ashamed? Who was talking when the rest of the people around them started nodding their heads in agreement?
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Jun 7, 2023 19:41:38 GMT
The UN guy citing the rights of the returned stopped Sam in his tracks. Sam had to pause and think about it. I don't see how the scene sets up the UN guy as wrong when his counterpoint to Sam is valid.
It depends I reckon on what you mean by right or wrong. Are you talking positions or attitudes? No doubt the scene cast the UN guy as inconsiderate, but that's not the same as being completely wrong.
Sam paused but it didn't stop him. He continued to give his speech WITHOUT addressing the point the UN personnel made. And he gave a fairly long speech after that point without it ever being addressed again. As for right and wrong, I'm not talking about what you or me define as right or wrong, I'm talking about how the scene was set-up so that it was clearly favoring Sam's take over the UN's. After all, who got to do almost all the talking? Who had contrite looks on their faces? Who looked ashamed? Who was talking when the rest of the people around them started nodding their heads in agreement? Sam's first words after the UN guy made his point was "you know what, you're right".
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jun 8, 2023 0:51:24 GMT
I don't honestly don't see what the issue is, unless you think the UN should be free of critisms. I think that 1. Karli and the Flagsmashers should definitely be called terrorists based on what they did. Yes they had their own reasons for what they did but so too did every other villain in the MCU. You don't see the movies trying to not call them villains. 2. Sam should not really criticize unless he has a better solution to suggest, because it just makes him look preachy and hypocritical. This is more a failing of the writers. Yes the UN should be criticized, but the writers should have been smart enough to give an actual compromise or at the very least, shine an equal light on both sides of the argument so that people can appreciate the dilemma (like how Civil War was handled). In Sam's speech, there was no compromise, no alternative solution, no equal representation of both sides of the argument. It's basically him pointing a finger at the UN and saying "you should do better" and that was it. 1) The only difference between a Terrorist and a Revolutionary is whether you win or not.
2) You don't need a solution to know when something is wrong. Look at America right now, with all the gun violence we hear people saying "DO BETTER" and not outlining exact answers. And people agree that America must "Do Better".
So why is that fine when no direct answers are given?
Go read that.
|
|