Are western comics "trojan horses for activism and ESG scores"? What do you mean by this (activism and ESG)? Who is "they"?
I'm not a search engine but ESG is basically corporate and government funding to include current year real world activism into media which is the antithesis of fiction.
You are suggesting that government pays writers to show those kinds of sustainability in a overly positive way?
How would western media look if it wasn't a trojan horse? Would it show slavery, environmental pollution and feudalism in a much more positive light? How can you be sure that the mismatch here is from goverment/corporate influence on writers, and not simply a difference in ethical values between the average writer and you?
>not simply a difference in ethical values between the average writer and you?
Because they only done this since its socially and commercially profitable?
You still did not tell me what those trojan horse writers are doing except that it is outside of the definition of "ESG score" that I provided.
What has become socially and commercially profitable?
The Boys does this, but ironically - but a lot of people apparently miss the point of it being ironic / a pisstake.
But that goes into the realm of commercial media, vs "artistic" media where authors can just do whatever they want, and maybe they'll find a publisher and get successful.
At times they can get very preachy, which is the problem. The reason is irrelevant, be it ESG investments or personal activism or what have you.
Japanese media can (and often does) include elements that are considered progressive, but it's rare for those to be crudely inserted for the sake of inserting them. Characters or themes that would be bemoaned in western media are appreciated because they are actually done in interesting ways, rather than acting as a political vibe check for the reader.
Which, in all honesty, is how I feel about this comment thread too. I simply do not believe anymore that people don't know what others mean when they say "woke". Not at this point. Yes it's hard to give a specific definition, but so is the case for fascism and the word is so, SO overused in political discourse that, funny enough, it has almost lost its meaning. Rarely does anyone go around saying "define fascism". And so comments are laid as bait, lest someone take a misstep which allows them to be branded as a series of -ists.
Whatever "woke" is, it is a thing. And many people are exhausted from it.
I mean that last one is a good thing; I think that instead of pearl-clutching and yelling "woke11!111" on the internet for a new Netflix production, it's more intellectually honest to criticize poor writing.
But this does not make the use of woke as a generic accusation any better.
> I simply do not believe anymore that people don't know what others mean when they say "woke"
The insiduous thing about this is: Different people do mean different things with this.
Some people are maybe against depicting women in leadership roles; others might not want to normalize homosexuality. Another group might want to keep any mention of transgenderism away from their kids. Someone else might just want to see more racist jokes about Mexicans. All those views are radically different; a lot of those "anti-woke" views would not even agree with each other.
By allowing weasely standpoints like that in a debate, you make it very easy for people to claim broad support for stupid and bigoted views without having to justify them.
So, in the context of western comics, what does "too much woke" mean to you?
>keep any mention of transgenderism away from their kids
>want to see more racist jokes about Mexicans
>So, in the context of western comics, what does "too much woke" mean to you?
I think you're demonstrating the optimal strategy that people should take. If an opinion can easily get you labeled as a bad person, it's probably better to just not talk about it.