Supporting higher taxation, more social services and more regulation means you think every character needs to be race/gender/orientation swapped and that minorities are oppressed? Supporting lower taxation, privatization and deregulation means you think Hollywood should respect the source material, and that minorities are on equal terms?
This never made sense to me, why aren't there anti-wokes with left-wing politics? Why aren't there wokes with right-wing politics?
Basically, Wokism is Marxism, using identity class (race, gender, sexuality) rather than economic class as the conflict point. It's a totalizing world view that rejects liberal ideas like individualism, natural rights, self determination, and equality under the law.
So the core of the ideology that motivates all their obsession with power relations of race/gender/sexuality is incompatible with the US Constitution, which most Republicans respect, or at least pay lip service to.
Since the Democrats long ago started viewing the Constitution as an obstacle to the power they crave, they were ripe to be taken over by an ideology whose main concern is power.
Ironically, Wokism is probably most similar to what is usually considered far right: Fascism.
Both are authoritarian and collectivist. Both believe individuals should be subordinate to the State. Wokism, unlike classic Marxism, has become corporatist, where the power of the State and corporations effectively merge. This is also a defining feature of Fascism.
A major difference is Wokism is globalist, while fascism is nationalist.
im pretty sure its not just "globalist and nationalist' that makes the difference, fascism is also anti lgbt, pro traditional family, pro traditions and heritage etc. etc.
the only thing they have in common is authoritarianism though id argue that wokism is even more authoritarian than fascism.
While your conception of left and right is a fake and gay story that has been written by the regime in order to advance the progressive dialectic, it is easy to explain why the teams have been giving these roles. The regime is woke. People who like woke want to empower the regime. People who don't like woke want to strip power from the regime.
Bill Maher will cave and other classical libs like him will eventually cave.
They remain with the Dems because they can't fathom ever voting Republican.
Nothing will ever push them away from the Dems if they haven't already walked away after the current hellish state of the country
The Maher types only exist as a function of profit. There is no such thing as a truly anti-woke leftist because it's too effective of a tool.
Woke culture equals leftism because wokeism doesn't allow it's cult members to vote for any Republican. They say all Republicans are fascists.
Wokeism is now the de-facto religion of the Democratic party.
If you are woke you must be a Democrat. If you are anti-woke, your options are third party or Republican or stay home and not vote.
If someone is anti-woke and they still vote Democrat, that is the worst type of idiot.
Bill Maher?
I watched Max Kharson's (Mr. Girl) appearance on Jesse Lee Peterson's show yesterday. He seemed reasonably moderate but also had a raging case of TDS still going.
There are a lot of anti-woke left wingers, mostly degenerates because communism has proven to be a failure. Look at every "based" faggot and tranny that coninc trots you to show "the democrats are the REAL bigots!".
There are some people who claim you can be for legal abortion but right wing.
Most lolberts are considered right wing because they like guns and money but aren't very vocal about social issues except weed.
For one thing, you're conflating two different things. Most wokes are left-wing, but it doesn't necessarily follow that most left-wing people are wokes. So how you've laid things out is a little skewed to begin with.
That said, one major reason for the overlap is emotional vs logical arguments. Left-wing is mostly emotional based. Thus all the talk of "empathy." Which, to be clear, there's nothing inherently wrong with, but it's bad as the basis of governance and law.
So there's your overlap; people who want high taxes and more social services want that because they think it's the government's job to take care of people in all ways. So, similarly, they think it's the job of the 'leaders of culture' to make sure everyone of all types are taken care of and represented. As for more regulation, same sort of thing, but also with an element of projection. They think authoritarianism is needed, because they're often the kind of people who are more likely to step all over people. Despite their moralistic arguments, they often lack a true moral foundation, so they think it's the State's job to impose such things.
It basically comes down to central planning versus more free market ideals. So, although it seems weird at first, it does make sense the woke/left, individualistic/rebellious/right setup. Again, it's not like it's a hard and fast rule; you have left wingers who aren't woke (although they're often still at risk due to more agreeableness, among other things), and you have right wingers who do end up doing more emotional arguments and trending toward woke.
That's the core thing: What's the job of government, and what's the responsibility of people? Who is owed what? If you don't think the government owes you stuff (more right wing), you probably also think Hollywood doesn't owe people "representation," so you're more likely to be against woke nonsense.
Its a cult they've been indoctrinated into. It doesnt make sense beyond weak people doing what they're told.
Because the ideology supports any fantasy their addled brain thinks up, while giving them hand outs and sponsoring this thinking.
Not so on the other side, where you need to conform and be productive.
Because wokism is a post-modernist and moral-relativist philosophy. That means its inherently progressive and eschews any ties to objective reality.
It is the complete antithesis of rightism, in fact, it is leftism taken to its most illogical and cartoonish extreme. If you went back 100 years and showed it to the leftists of that age, they would think it satire of their policies.
There are. eg. Aimee Therese who is an old-school Communist who thinks that this woke shit is nothing but upper class status signaling that doesn't address any of the actual day-to-day concerns of the working class poor the left claims to want to help.
You also I suppose have the Bret Weinsteins, who simply think their particular brand of leftism was "true liberalism" and effectively want the socio-political equivalent of a boulder they pushed down a hill to stop midway down the hill instead of at the bottom.
There are This would be your classic "socially liberal, economically conservative" Reason Magazine crowd, who agree with the social aims of leftism but simply think the so-called "free" market should impose it on all of us rather than the government.
There are, they just don't have any voice, I looked through the reveddit version of reddit pages on propaganda subreddits like news a year or two ago and you could see all the reasonable stuff being deleted.
It's made sure that these people aren't allowed to speak.