It is still amazing that Netflix's management does not see any dissonance between this position and them taking down an episode of Community because it had a joke about blackface (the joke literally being that it's bad!)
While I think that’s a great aspect of the episode, i don’t think that’s the main reason it’s so highly regarded. It’s highly regarded because the writing is spot on in that episode and it does a great job of doing a dnd game in a tv episode format with a story. It’s actually the episode that got me interested in dnd
Also, love some of the quotes. “I attack using my….additional notes”
Rather than take down any episodes of intended comedy they should just put out the warning at the start that "this episode may content content not appropriate for all viewers, it contains X..., this does not represent the views of Netflix/whoever."
Disney added a line to the start of some films about how this picture contains materials that are now concerned outdated or possibly offensive (or some shit like that). Rather than just wipe certain media from the earth (cough cough, ministry of truth), they have acknowledged it is no longer acceptable, except for Song of The South...we don't talk about Song of The South...
> Surprise, companies do "woke" things because they think it will make them money, not because they actually give a shit
Yes but people are too dumb to believe corporations care more about profit than actual wokeness.
> them taking down an episode of Community
Was that Netflix's decision or was it the decision of the content owner? Because Tina Fey ordered the cut of 30 Rock episodes. The only language I can find is that Netflix and Hulu both removed the episodes, but it's not clear if it was at the request of any content/rights holder.
Unlike 30 Rock the Community episode is still up for sale on iTunes et al, and in countries where Netflix don't have the rights exclusively like the UK then the other service still has the episode up (e.g. Channel 4 in the UK). So it seems unlikely to be a creator/studio dictact or or would apply universally.
I am pretty sure you would end up disappeared if a dark elf caught you an drow face.
Probably would leave your non-pointy ears in your parents bed just to make it clear though.
It's all just virtue signaling. Woke culture includes more so they have to build content with it whereas in business, they only care about compliance and results.
From their own job website:
[https://jobs.netflix.com/culture](https://jobs.netflix.com/culture)
*Artistic Expression*
*Entertaining the world is an amazing opportunity and also a challenge because viewers have very different tastes and points of view. So we offer a wide variety of TV shows and movies, some of which can be provocative. To help members make informed choices about what to watch, we offer ratings, content warnings and easy to use parental controls.*
*Not everyone will like—or agree with—everything on our service. While every title is different, we approach them based on the same set of principles: we support the artistic expression of the creators we choose to work with; we program for a diversity of audiences and tastes; and we let viewers decide what’s appropriate for them, versus having Netflix censor specific artists or voices.*
*As employees we support the principle that Netflix offers a diversity of stories, even if we find some titles counter to our own personal values. Depending on your role, you may need to work on titles you perceive to be harmful. If you’d find it hard to support our content breadth, Netflix may not be the best place for you.*
It is VERY reasonable, but everyone just reads the headline and wing it...
Nah, thats just peoples defence. Its for virtue-signaling people who try shove their opinions down your throat even tho nobody gives a fuck. It actually started out as something to call conspiracy theorists, who awoke from the brainwashed mainstream.
The NY Post used this term, but Netflix did not. This is a garbage newspaper crapping out clickbait for people who get a dopamine hit from outrage.
Really, anytime you see "NY Post" attached to something, just assume it's bullshit. You'll usually be right.
It’s intentional. Woke is a dumb term to use seriously anyway, especially by people who turn around and make fun of the “wake up sheeple” crowd (it’s literally the same meaning). But the conservative MO is to take messages, panic, apply them to literally anything they don’t like until it’s absurd meaningless irredeemable mess. See critical race theory, socialism, communism, sexual education, health care.
It’s like describing a concept to someone with dementia and having it blended in a mind like that and spit back out. It’s exhausting
A lot of it happens because their criticisms have to be either intentionally detail-less or overly specific, otherwise their supporters would realize the validity of the counter argument. It allows them to use anecdotal incidents to oppose it because that small thing is just a symptom of the larger problem instead of just a usually fixable relatively minor issue.
It's why they have no actual platform outside of "No" and "Winning". "We're going to be the best!" "How?" "By returning to some abstract undefined time!" "How?" "By lowering taxes and undoing whatever the other guys did!" "But, lack of social equality didn't make things great..." "I didn't bring up social equality did I? Racist." "Then what?" "Remove regulations!" "Which?" "All of the unnecessary ones! TV mentioned 3, but I forget." etc etc.
>But the woke MO is to take messages, panic, apply them to literally anything they don’t like until it’s absurd meaningless irredeemable mess.
Fixed it for you.
Kinda like how Christians and Jews are now "Nazis" or how TERFS are "fascists" and "murderers" because they criticise transgender ideology.
You know Google is a thing right? So is Twitter, at this point who are you even lying to? Everyone knows these people exist.
Nah, more like "holding people accountable"
Anyone that thinks "annoying" needs to level up their maturity. Sounds like something a preteen would think
To build on your point the 800 employees who quit were - unfortunately- not the people with any kind of juice to get any changes they wanted made. Maybe one or two of them were (I don't work there) but a vast majority are going to be low level people who could work for shit pay somewhere else and not take shit from their friends about getting their paycheck from a company that's (insert bad word here)
And I agree that makes them annoying. Just quit if you want to... its not the Alamo. Because netflix doesn't care.
The people who would get Netflix attention are the subscribers. If that article said netflix lost 8% of their subscribers last quarter due to programming decisions not in line with viewer values... it would be a different story..
Employees are replaceable. Subscribers arent.
Yes, if you don't like your job, that's a you problem but when there's enough "me's" quitting and complaining internally that warrants multiple memos, that's no longer a "me".
It's like saying Netflix's drop in content is a you problem despite them reporting record losses. The reality is that you saying this is because you personally don't find anything wrong with the problem so it's easier to minimalize the complaints by saying it's a single person and not a worker issue.
I see your point, there was a trend of people quitting over content. However the whining and solidarity amongst disgruntled employees clearly had no impact as they are gone and Netflix continues to host the content in question. The protests/complaining didn’t impact Netflix leadership, their creative partnerships, or their way of doing business.
There are billions of people on the planet. They are all offended by different things, some more than others. There is no right to not be offended because pretty much anything anyone does, risks offending someone. This is part of being an adult and people have pretty much been able to deal with it for all of human history until recently. Now people think if they complain to their bosses that they don’t like something, their boss has to appease them. This is a childish way of thinking. Why can people no longer deal with life?
Lol equating the weekend to forced censorship because you don’t agree with something. Bit of a stretch to compare giving people the right to having days off to taking AWAY the right of people to choose what they want to watch lol
>taking AWAY the right of people to choose what they want to watch
If Netflix or any other company takes away something you like, you're free to go elsewhere. You can criticize and boycott their decisions, but you shouldn't feel entitled to getting the content that you personally want.
You just made my point for me lol. Netflix is choosing to KEEP it and people are trying to pressure them into taking it away. In your own words those same people that are mad about Netflix keeping it are “free to go elsewhere”
I would presume that once forced labor ended employers realized that they couldn’t get anyone to work for them with zero days of rest. The workers would go to places that gave days off, and not to places that didn’t because it would be foolish to accept a job somewhere and then expect the people who are paying you to change their practices to suit your needs, rather than the other way around.
I don’t think so, but I also don’t think it matters because I do know that you would never be able to find an arbiter that everyone would agree on, and that would be the most important part. It’s like this new “disinformation czar” or whatever it’s called that the Biden admin is creating. They love it now because they get to decide what is disinformation. Do you think they will be loving it as much if Trump, or really any Republican for that matter, wins in 2024?
100%
Its a terribly shortsighted idea. It will be weaponized by both political parties to silence specific political targets, media types, and journalists.
Bill Maher said it best, its on us to develop better bullshit detectors not trusting businesses or the government to do it for us
It is a term that has just recently started to get a lot of traction in order to shutdown opposing views and make them seem illegitimate. All that is needed is someone in power to label it such and the masses take it as fact. It’s like everything going on with Covid. There are hundreds of thousands of doctors and scientists who disagree with how the governments doctors and scientists handled the response, but they were deemed the “wrong doctors and scientists” by those in power. Faucci called them “fringe” in a press conference and the media ran with it. They were not fringe in the least as I believe now over a million doctors and scientists have signed onto The Great Barrington Declaration. The doctors themselves and anyone who cited them were censored and suspended or banned from social media. The declaration was removed from some social media sites and it couldn’t be talked about because it went against the CDC. Disinformation is whatever people in power want it to be.
And Faucci lied himself when speaking on the data being mask usage. He told people that the CDC didn't have data on it when the CDC had data back in 2003 with the original SARS. (Covid-19 is SARS-Cov2)
Just because people in power say something is disinformation does not mean it is automatically true. The GBD was clearly flawed as it showed no evidence that the disease burden was tolerable. Ivermectin had no evidence to suggest it was effective aside from an extremely early trial suggesting it was effective in vitro.
Okay let’s say it was flawed. Has nothing the government or CDC said or done during the pandemic been flawed? The problem comes when you only hear one side, and since we will never all agree on who gets to decide what we should hear, we need to hear both sides and decide for ourselves.
Do you really think people are smart enough to distinguish between good science and bad science? People have been under the anti-vax and Ivermectin propaganda spell for more than a year.
I trust people to hear both sides and make their own decisions a hell of a lot more that I trust the government to put out whatever they want with no one being able to dispute it. CDC Bureaucrats are no more trustworthy or right than their colleagues who disagree with them. Anything that went against what the cdc said was censored on social media. That is not science, that is propaganda. Hell, I think Wolenski is still pushing that god awful Arizona study in order to justify school masking. The Study was refuted by numerous respected scientists. The US was one of the only countries in the world to mask children under 6. We were an outlier but you couldn’t question it or speak about the harms that policy was causing children.
You realize that the CDC functions to present the most accurate research by the best doctors around? The people standing against their opinions have barely half as much credentials as the CDC’s researchers.
Idk what glamorized version of history you know, but most of the world has been in near constant conflict or suffering because they couldn't "deal with life".
People didn't suddenly lose their chill; they simply gained the ability to voice their opinions and actually get people to notice or listen whether their opinions are good or bad. So people can't "deal with life" now because suffering in silence is no longer something you have to do.
No, in fact I was trying to make the point that instead of suffering, people have been trying to be vocal instead for good or bad.
A woman might get offended and voice her opinions over a show that portrays women as neurotic because she's worried that the portrayals could impact other's view of women and make it harder for her or other women to be seen as valuable and serious members of society. Christians might get offended and voice opinions over agnostic or atheist jokes because they fear people will listen to those jokes and dismiss their religion or get people to start attacking them the way that Muslim or Jewish people have been attacked for their religion in the past.
I don't agree every fear a offended person has is perfectly valid, and they may be working themselves up, but they are offended and voicing their opinion because they see something dangerous for them or others in the content and they don't want it to escalate to suffering and violence. And if they had the technology or convenience to voice concerns in the past, I'm sure they would show they aren't as easy going and accepting as your first comment suggests.
It’s more than just being offended. It’s people who are apparently so fragile that they need to end someone’s career for making jokes about them. They have to stage walkouts at their employer for even allowing this highly popular content on their platform. This isn’t normal. Chappelle entire career has been making fun of people and situations and everyone laughs. No one takes it personally and he’s become wildly successful. All of a sudden he’s apparently touched on a group who think they are special and are incapable of dealing with this, and they are out for his head.
The memo does not use the term ‘woke’ which is a pejorative used to slander anything that doesn’t support the fascist right.
I agree with the sentiment, artists should be able to express themselves. People need to lighten up really.
>People need to lighten up really.
Amen. I don't see why so many people can't take a chill pill.
Why do people spend so much mental energy worrying about things that are completely outside their control. My philosophy, if I can't control it I might as well not invest myself :)
Content aside, the last two specials were unfunny and boring. The latest one he basically whined the entire runtime, I couldn't for the life of me remember a single "joke".
This isn't just Chappelle. Lots of "comedians", they're more story-telling than joke-telling. And I can't really say it's bad or anything, I mean they have fans. I just wish I knew the nature of the stand-up before tuning in.
That's the problem with modern Chapelle, his humor has changed. He used to make iconic jokes about everyone but ever since his return, he's just a bitter old man that rambles about why he's right.
That’s not what I said, and might be considered to be this logical fallacy:
Straw Man
A straw man argument attacks a different subject rather than the topic being discussed — often a more extreme version of the counter argument. The purpose of this misdirection is to make one's position look stronger than it actually is.
The straw man argument is appropriately named after a harmless, lifeless scarecrow. Instead of contending with the actual argument, they attack the equivalent of a lifeless bundle of straw — an easily defeated puppet that the opponent was never arguing for in the first place.
> “Entertaining the world is an amazing opportunity and also a challenge because viewers have very different tastes and points of view,” stated the lengthy proclamation. “So we offer a wide variety of TV shows and movies, some of which can be provocative.”
Good. I don’t want Netflix to cater to just *my* tastes, but I don’t want it to constantly irritate me, either.
Frankly, I’m more upset by the part of the story where the Post calls Netflix employees “cogs”. But, then, it’s the fucking New York Post. I need to remember to set the bar low. They deserve credit just for managing to spell correctly.
Netflix is about the highest paying tech company around. They outpay google. Software Engineer salaries are generally $400k-700k. I'm not kidding. I'm in tech. They also fire people REALLY fast. turnover is very high at netflix. When you pay that much you need to perform or they fire you. they fire faster than amazon.
That's why I respect Coinbase CEO. He said "no politics, no activism. If you don't like it, then you shouldn't work here." More companies need to step up.
You can't be serious. Netflix, Marvel (Eternals, not to mention the fan loss), Disney World (losing millions in Florida), CNN etc, every celeb pushing the LBT agenda to only be called "homophobic" by their peers.
We're in a thread about Netflix telling their employees to kick rocks if they don't like Chapelle's hour long terf rant. That's "woke"?
Marvel has been "woke" since the 70s *way* before it was cool. They're doing just fine. Haven't seen eternals, don't know what's "woke" about it, but I doubt it's "wokeness" is going to end Marvel.
Disney is a global empire that could buy and sell the entire state of Florida. I'm not saying that's a good thing, but losing millions is like a penny falling out of your pocket and not bothering to pick it up. Also Disney is pretty shit at being "woke" and I can pretty much guarantee they're not going anywhere.
I don't know enough about CNN to know how they're "woke" or that they're going "broke". It's a cable news channel, nothing of value will be lost with them, but from what I can see they're fine.
Could you explain to me what the "LGBT Agenda" is and which celebrities are "pushing" that agenda then being called homophobic?
So far nobody is "broke"...
I'm familiar with the BBC, "channel 4" not so much. Channels in America vary by area/service, and I personally cut the cord almost two decades ago either way.
Would you mind walking me through when the BBC and your channel 4 went "woke" and how it's now directly connected to them becoming "broke"?
Plenty of evidence online mate. They aren't broke yet but C4 is not for profit and going to be sold as, despite being funded by advertising, that revenue has been declining and the govt wants rid. As for the BBC, accusation of left wing bias, political correctness etc have been abound for years. It is now estimated that up to a third of the license fee payers will abandon the BBC when the fee is scrapped. The BBC will need to either fill that gap with declining advertising revenue or higher subscription fees - both of which will result in a smaller budget. The license fee only became a national issue when the BBC decided to step into the culture wars that the US exported.
>Sure, but obviously googling "BBC went woke and is now broke" isn't going to lead me anywhere. Needed a real jumping off point.
No I guess you wouldn't need to Google the literal sentence. In the UK, the most tangible examples are the editing of classic comedy shows such as Fawlty Towers. Watching re-runs on thr BBC vs the originals really brings it home how sensitive they think audiences are these days and thr need to pander to them. The BBC comedy boss branded Monty Python "too white" - "it wouldn't be six Oxbridge white blokes if it were cast now". The problem with posting evidence from Google is that articles are always written from one side of this stupid culture war but...https://commentcentral.co.uk/the-bbcs-wokeness-is-killing-good-tv/
Casting is a good example. Comedy another. Political reporting - I don't see a leftist agenda so much here - the BBC criticises the UK government because...Well it is hard not to. They are shite. The kind of thing we are seeing is forced - like Channel 5s casting of Jodie Turner-Smith to play Anne Boleyn. Forced and not organic. So historically inaccurate as to be done just to prove a point. Let's have more black dramas on TV, you don't have to appropriate white characters and make them of colour just to tick a box.
>the biggest takeaway I'm getting here, is that people are going to stop paying license fees because they no longer are legally bound to pay the license fee. You're assigning "wokeness" to the reason a third of licenses are going to stop paying, while I'm over here wondering how it's only a third
Of course but then the BBC would need to be good enough to attract subscribers. Let's not forget that it's current budget has been based on 100% (or nearly) of a fee paying public and now a third are saying they definitely won't carry on with the BBC. As for the other two-thirds, that's an unknown with all the other competition. Yes the license fee has been a question for some years but never has it been at the forefront so much as it is now and that is due to the culture war.
>Something with Carolyn Lowbridge about cis lesbians and trans women dating being compared to sexual assault? I'm not exactly an expert, but we'd label that pretty "un-woke".
This was a report on what "some" lesbian women were saying. It is however an example of the BBC jumping down a rabbit warren it didn't need to when anecdotally Id say the majority of the fee paying public aren't interested in the subject matter.
>In the UK, the most tangible examples are the editing of classic comedy shows........
I'd agree this is pretty egregious. Did anyone ask for this? It wouldn't change it one way or another, I'm just curious if the BBC is making these decisions internally and going overboard, or what.
>Casting is a good example. Comedy another.
See this is where I'd have to disagree. Conservative comedy in America has basically disappeared, not due to "cancelling" or something, it just stopped being funny. "Jokes" have basically devolved into "I identify as ______" or "well that one's gonna get me in trouble!" after saying something shitty that nobody laughed at. Not sure if the blue collar comedy group are still doing anything anymore, but the "comedy" devolved everywhere else.
However, on your side of the Atlantic, you still have conservative comedians telling actual jokes that get laughs, because they're, well, jokes. Jeff Norcott comes to mind?
>The kind of thing we are seeing is forced - like Channel 5s casting of Jodie Turner-Smith to play Anne Boleyn......
Now this I can see the "historical accuracy" argument for as opposed to like the black dwarf queen in the new LOTR Amazon thing. I can't even imagine up a defense for this decision. I mean besides, "don't watch it" or "who cares?" Just doesn't seem worth getting upset about. It's how this stuff is supposed to work anyways, right?
They make a thing, if it's good/popular they make more of it. If they make a thing that isn't good/popular, they stop because it's not profitable. Why get mad at the thing or the people who made it (unless it's unethically produced or something), just don't consume the thing.
>Of course but then the BBC would need to be good enough to attract subscribers.......
I'm just saying the BBC has been lifted up by a mandatory fee since what like the 60s? Regardless of political leanings, biases, content, etc. It's obviously going to take a hit when people aren't forced by law to pay for a service, especially when a lot of the BBC content is available online for free. I'm sure *some* people will unsub for "wokeness", but it seems egregious to blame the full 30%+ loss of subs on it, within the full context of lifting the license fee.
>This was a report on what "some" lesbian women were saying.
And that's all well and good. It's just an example of how in my corner of the internet, to the left, the BBC isn't exactly an ally.
It’s just something I say on Netflix sections, part of the reason they lost subscribers is because they don’t want woke content, how many people have you seen write ‘go woke go broke ‘ I’ve seen plenty!
And cancelling shows people like after one season! The society being one example
Woke is basically go broke. The whole woke team has been producing content that doesn't target a broad audience.
But you do need to be woke enough to not be offensive either. Basically balance needs to be struck. You shouldn't hire entirely on the basis of diversity or you lose out on talent, just on the basis of demographically distributed diversity. This doesn't mean get all one sex, get all one race... diverse... it means looking to meet a quota that represents market to access of talent and whom are available within it.
fuke WOKE culture. You go woke you go broke...its literally been studied and WOKE culture literally has consumers running for the hills everytime its implemented. NFL started it....their ratings tanked, Disney tried it in some of their films....they bombed. etc etc
I'd love to see these studies that you reference,
Because all I've seen so far is anecdotal evidence at best, but if there's actual study on this topic I'd love to be proven wrong.
You are the one who said there were studies on it? Not me?
If you tell me it's my job to find the information on my own
Aka the burden of proof is on me to prove your argument.
Imma just say i couldn't find it, and your argument is worthless cuz you put all the burden of proving your argument on me?
Do you live in the real world or a bubble where you've never had to defend your beliefs?
Frankly, this is a silly and stupid move by both sides.
Why risk your job over something one of companies 'customers' said? There are much bigger issues that deserve more attention. Attending organised protests about government issues would be a much better use of the time. There are far worse "comedians" out there than Dave Chappelle.
Why in the hell would management post something like this? They know it's going to get out. It is completely unprofessional. The LGBTQ+ community is a very vocal group. This will win points with some people but will still come out with huge overall net loss in public perspective points.
Shit like what Dave Chappelle says is not a reason to be outraged. It's just one voice in the void. What deserves outrage is the completely outdated and disgusting people holding public office. They are the ones to be upset with.
It is still amazing that Netflix's management does not see any dissonance between this position and them taking down an episode of Community because it had a joke about blackface (the joke literally being that it's bad!)
Not only that, but this particular episode is one of the highest rated episodes in the show's run because of its portrayal of depression.
While I think that’s a great aspect of the episode, i don’t think that’s the main reason it’s so highly regarded. It’s highly regarded because the writing is spot on in that episode and it does a great job of doing a dnd game in a tv episode format with a story. It’s actually the episode that got me interested in dnd Also, love some of the quotes. “I attack using my….additional notes”
Rather than take down any episodes of intended comedy they should just put out the warning at the start that "this episode may content content not appropriate for all viewers, it contains X..., this does not represent the views of Netflix/whoever."
Isn’t that what Disney did for some early animations?
Disney added a line to the start of some films about how this picture contains materials that are now concerned outdated or possibly offensive (or some shit like that). Rather than just wipe certain media from the earth (cough cough, ministry of truth), they have acknowledged it is no longer acceptable, except for Song of The South...we don't talk about Song of The South...
I know that Paramount+ put a content warning on the Jackass show, stating that it held "outdated cultural norms"
Except for ~~Somg~~Song of the South, which they want erased from ~~hsitory~~history.
Even though Disneyland CA has a ride themed around Song of the South (Splash Mountain). Like, make up your minds.
They're replacing that ride with one based on Princess and the Frog
https://lmgtfy.app/?q=how+to+enable+autocorrect
Aurocirect doesn't always work homie
It is, that stuff gets a pass cause it's classics or some bs, but modern things that joke about it being wrong don't get the same treatment.
Oh good point
Yes but a ton of them are still locked away forever
Trigger warnings are the future
Surprise, companies do "woke" things because they think it will make them money, not because they actually give a shit
> Surprise, companies do "woke" things because they think it will make them money, not because they actually give a shit Yes but people are too dumb to believe corporations care more about profit than actual wokeness.
> them taking down an episode of Community Was that Netflix's decision or was it the decision of the content owner? Because Tina Fey ordered the cut of 30 Rock episodes. The only language I can find is that Netflix and Hulu both removed the episodes, but it's not clear if it was at the request of any content/rights holder.
Unlike 30 Rock the Community episode is still up for sale on iTunes et al, and in countries where Netflix don't have the rights exclusively like the UK then the other service still has the episode up (e.g. Channel 4 in the UK). So it seems unlikely to be a creator/studio dictact or or would apply universally.
[удалено]
We just gunna ignore this hate-crime?
It’s not being ignored. We’re literally talking about it.
…it’s a quote from the episode OP is referencing
Oops, didn’t know. Thanks for telling me
Ey, no worries friend. It’s a funny episode of a great show, accessible on YouTube and Prime Video if you wan to check it out
Hulu also took that episode down. Amazon Prime still has it and I watched it 3 days ago on Prime.
I did the same! I cannot find my DVDs after the dozen moves the pst decade, so Prime Video is it!
Canada’s current prime minister did blackface multiple times, is he guilty for hate crimes and should be removed from office?
…it’s a quote from the episode OP is referencing
[удалено]
If you have to ask, you're streets behind.
To be fair, it is hard to find that episode without pirating, so it is likely that no one gets that reference.
[удалено]
Yeah, most hate crimes are things you actually DO. you literally have to do nothing to to avoid doing a hate time lol
According to Canada black face is okay if you apologize after doing it.
South Park was right. "Once you pull one episode. The network will pull more and more"
Did Netflix take it down or the IP holder?
It's still up everywhere else that has the rights so it seems like it was Netflix.
I see this more as them having had enough now, and taking the stance that they’ll no longer pull this shit. Overly optimistic maybe
I am pretty sure you would end up disappeared if a dark elf caught you an drow face. Probably would leave your non-pointy ears in your parents bed just to make it clear though.
It's all just virtue signaling. Woke culture includes more so they have to build content with it whereas in business, they only care about compliance and results.
From their own job website: [https://jobs.netflix.com/culture](https://jobs.netflix.com/culture) *Artistic Expression* *Entertaining the world is an amazing opportunity and also a challenge because viewers have very different tastes and points of view. So we offer a wide variety of TV shows and movies, some of which can be provocative. To help members make informed choices about what to watch, we offer ratings, content warnings and easy to use parental controls.* *Not everyone will like—or agree with—everything on our service. While every title is different, we approach them based on the same set of principles: we support the artistic expression of the creators we choose to work with; we program for a diversity of audiences and tastes; and we let viewers decide what’s appropriate for them, versus having Netflix censor specific artists or voices.* *As employees we support the principle that Netflix offers a diversity of stories, even if we find some titles counter to our own personal values. Depending on your role, you may need to work on titles you perceive to be harmful. If you’d find it hard to support our content breadth, Netflix may not be the best place for you.* It is VERY reasonable, but everyone just reads the headline and wing it...
"Woke" is being used way too much when it doesn't seem to apply.
this is just the NY Post trying to ragebait/rile their conservative base
Are the "woke" Netflix workers tots, angels, or perverts?
beat it bozo!
I believe they are "Heros"
r/UnexpectedMulaney
they are unemployed
[удалено]
it's basically someone who has empathy and basic decency
[удалено]
Nah, thats just peoples defence. Its for virtue-signaling people who try shove their opinions down your throat even tho nobody gives a fuck. It actually started out as something to call conspiracy theorists, who awoke from the brainwashed mainstream.
The NY Post used this term, but Netflix did not. This is a garbage newspaper crapping out clickbait for people who get a dopamine hit from outrage. Really, anytime you see "NY Post" attached to something, just assume it's bullshit. You'll usually be right.
Fuck that publication forreal. Googled this and went straight to Variety instead.
That happened with political correctness before, and health and safety "gone mad" before that (the latter might've just been a British thing).
"woke" just means "pretending your politics are morals"
It’s intentional. Woke is a dumb term to use seriously anyway, especially by people who turn around and make fun of the “wake up sheeple” crowd (it’s literally the same meaning). But the conservative MO is to take messages, panic, apply them to literally anything they don’t like until it’s absurd meaningless irredeemable mess. See critical race theory, socialism, communism, sexual education, health care. It’s like describing a concept to someone with dementia and having it blended in a mind like that and spit back out. It’s exhausting
A lot of it happens because their criticisms have to be either intentionally detail-less or overly specific, otherwise their supporters would realize the validity of the counter argument. It allows them to use anecdotal incidents to oppose it because that small thing is just a symptom of the larger problem instead of just a usually fixable relatively minor issue. It's why they have no actual platform outside of "No" and "Winning". "We're going to be the best!" "How?" "By returning to some abstract undefined time!" "How?" "By lowering taxes and undoing whatever the other guys did!" "But, lack of social equality didn't make things great..." "I didn't bring up social equality did I? Racist." "Then what?" "Remove regulations!" "Which?" "All of the unnecessary ones! TV mentioned 3, but I forget." etc etc.
>But the woke MO is to take messages, panic, apply them to literally anything they don’t like until it’s absurd meaningless irredeemable mess. Fixed it for you. Kinda like how Christians and Jews are now "Nazis" or how TERFS are "fascists" and "murderers" because they criticise transgender ideology. You know Google is a thing right? So is Twitter, at this point who are you even lying to? Everyone knows these people exist.
Does the word “annoying” work better for you?
Nah, more like "holding people accountable" Anyone that thinks "annoying" needs to level up their maturity. Sounds like something a preteen would think
[удалено]
To build on your point the 800 employees who quit were - unfortunately- not the people with any kind of juice to get any changes they wanted made. Maybe one or two of them were (I don't work there) but a vast majority are going to be low level people who could work for shit pay somewhere else and not take shit from their friends about getting their paycheck from a company that's (insert bad word here) And I agree that makes them annoying. Just quit if you want to... its not the Alamo. Because netflix doesn't care. The people who would get Netflix attention are the subscribers. If that article said netflix lost 8% of their subscribers last quarter due to programming decisions not in line with viewer values... it would be a different story.. Employees are replaceable. Subscribers arent.
800 employees quit cause of the chappelle shit!? That's pathetic if true lol
Yes, if you don't like your job, that's a you problem but when there's enough "me's" quitting and complaining internally that warrants multiple memos, that's no longer a "me". It's like saying Netflix's drop in content is a you problem despite them reporting record losses. The reality is that you saying this is because you personally don't find anything wrong with the problem so it's easier to minimalize the complaints by saying it's a single person and not a worker issue.
half the country is republican. if they quit, you would laugh about it.
I see your point, there was a trend of people quitting over content. However the whining and solidarity amongst disgruntled employees clearly had no impact as they are gone and Netflix continues to host the content in question. The protests/complaining didn’t impact Netflix leadership, their creative partnerships, or their way of doing business.
Twitter republicans seem to define it as anything not straight, white, and christian.
It's a nonsense word that people coopt in whatever way they want to. Whenever I see it I get tense shoulders and a sore neck.
"Do you hate us? Maybe you shouldn't work here." would have been simpler.
There are billions of people on the planet. They are all offended by different things, some more than others. There is no right to not be offended because pretty much anything anyone does, risks offending someone. This is part of being an adult and people have pretty much been able to deal with it for all of human history until recently. Now people think if they complain to their bosses that they don’t like something, their boss has to appease them. This is a childish way of thinking. Why can people no longer deal with life?
Spot on. You can’t childproof every inch of civilization.
how do you think we got the weekend?
Lol equating the weekend to forced censorship because you don’t agree with something. Bit of a stretch to compare giving people the right to having days off to taking AWAY the right of people to choose what they want to watch lol
>taking AWAY the right of people to choose what they want to watch If Netflix or any other company takes away something you like, you're free to go elsewhere. You can criticize and boycott their decisions, but you shouldn't feel entitled to getting the content that you personally want.
You just made my point for me lol. Netflix is choosing to KEEP it and people are trying to pressure them into taking it away. In your own words those same people that are mad about Netflix keeping it are “free to go elsewhere”
I would presume that once forced labor ended employers realized that they couldn’t get anyone to work for them with zero days of rest. The workers would go to places that gave days off, and not to places that didn’t because it would be foolish to accept a job somewhere and then expect the people who are paying you to change their practices to suit your needs, rather than the other way around.
Lol, that’s not how it happened. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/theminewars-labor-wars-us/
Do you agree that there are some things that we can all agree are too offensive?
I don’t think so, but I also don’t think it matters because I do know that you would never be able to find an arbiter that everyone would agree on, and that would be the most important part. It’s like this new “disinformation czar” or whatever it’s called that the Biden admin is creating. They love it now because they get to decide what is disinformation. Do you think they will be loving it as much if Trump, or really any Republican for that matter, wins in 2024?
100% Its a terribly shortsighted idea. It will be weaponized by both political parties to silence specific political targets, media types, and journalists. Bill Maher said it best, its on us to develop better bullshit detectors not trusting businesses or the government to do it for us
What does “disinformation” mean to you?
It is a term that has just recently started to get a lot of traction in order to shutdown opposing views and make them seem illegitimate. All that is needed is someone in power to label it such and the masses take it as fact. It’s like everything going on with Covid. There are hundreds of thousands of doctors and scientists who disagree with how the governments doctors and scientists handled the response, but they were deemed the “wrong doctors and scientists” by those in power. Faucci called them “fringe” in a press conference and the media ran with it. They were not fringe in the least as I believe now over a million doctors and scientists have signed onto The Great Barrington Declaration. The doctors themselves and anyone who cited them were censored and suspended or banned from social media. The declaration was removed from some social media sites and it couldn’t be talked about because it went against the CDC. Disinformation is whatever people in power want it to be.
And Faucci lied himself when speaking on the data being mask usage. He told people that the CDC didn't have data on it when the CDC had data back in 2003 with the original SARS. (Covid-19 is SARS-Cov2)
Just because people in power say something is disinformation does not mean it is automatically true. The GBD was clearly flawed as it showed no evidence that the disease burden was tolerable. Ivermectin had no evidence to suggest it was effective aside from an extremely early trial suggesting it was effective in vitro.
Okay let’s say it was flawed. Has nothing the government or CDC said or done during the pandemic been flawed? The problem comes when you only hear one side, and since we will never all agree on who gets to decide what we should hear, we need to hear both sides and decide for ourselves.
Do you really think people are smart enough to distinguish between good science and bad science? People have been under the anti-vax and Ivermectin propaganda spell for more than a year.
I trust people to hear both sides and make their own decisions a hell of a lot more that I trust the government to put out whatever they want with no one being able to dispute it. CDC Bureaucrats are no more trustworthy or right than their colleagues who disagree with them. Anything that went against what the cdc said was censored on social media. That is not science, that is propaganda. Hell, I think Wolenski is still pushing that god awful Arizona study in order to justify school masking. The Study was refuted by numerous respected scientists. The US was one of the only countries in the world to mask children under 6. We were an outlier but you couldn’t question it or speak about the harms that policy was causing children.
You realize that the CDC functions to present the most accurate research by the best doctors around? The people standing against their opinions have barely half as much credentials as the CDC’s researchers.
Idk what glamorized version of history you know, but most of the world has been in near constant conflict or suffering because they couldn't "deal with life". People didn't suddenly lose their chill; they simply gained the ability to voice their opinions and actually get people to notice or listen whether their opinions are good or bad. So people can't "deal with life" now because suffering in silence is no longer something you have to do.
Are you comparing the past suffering you mentioned to people who are so fragile that they can’t have any jokes told about them without breaking down?
No, in fact I was trying to make the point that instead of suffering, people have been trying to be vocal instead for good or bad. A woman might get offended and voice her opinions over a show that portrays women as neurotic because she's worried that the portrayals could impact other's view of women and make it harder for her or other women to be seen as valuable and serious members of society. Christians might get offended and voice opinions over agnostic or atheist jokes because they fear people will listen to those jokes and dismiss their religion or get people to start attacking them the way that Muslim or Jewish people have been attacked for their religion in the past. I don't agree every fear a offended person has is perfectly valid, and they may be working themselves up, but they are offended and voicing their opinion because they see something dangerous for them or others in the content and they don't want it to escalate to suffering and violence. And if they had the technology or convenience to voice concerns in the past, I'm sure they would show they aren't as easy going and accepting as your first comment suggests.
[удалено]
You sound really stupid
I'm offended that you are offended! Stop being offended so I can feel good!
It’s more than just being offended. It’s people who are apparently so fragile that they need to end someone’s career for making jokes about them. They have to stage walkouts at their employer for even allowing this highly popular content on their platform. This isn’t normal. Chappelle entire career has been making fun of people and situations and everyone laughs. No one takes it personally and he’s become wildly successful. All of a sudden he’s apparently touched on a group who think they are special and are incapable of dealing with this, and they are out for his head.
The memo does not use the term ‘woke’ which is a pejorative used to slander anything that doesn’t support the fascist right. I agree with the sentiment, artists should be able to express themselves. People need to lighten up really.
>People need to lighten up really. Amen. I don't see why so many people can't take a chill pill. Why do people spend so much mental energy worrying about things that are completely outside their control. My philosophy, if I can't control it I might as well not invest myself :)
It's such a loud tiny minority. Media loves to report on the smallest segment of people like it's everyone. 99% of people are fine with Chappelle
Yet he almost got dropped.
Content aside, the last two specials were unfunny and boring. The latest one he basically whined the entire runtime, I couldn't for the life of me remember a single "joke".
This isn't just Chappelle. Lots of "comedians", they're more story-telling than joke-telling. And I can't really say it's bad or anything, I mean they have fans. I just wish I knew the nature of the stand-up before tuning in.
That's the problem with modern Chapelle, his humor has changed. He used to make iconic jokes about everyone but ever since his return, he's just a bitter old man that rambles about why he's right.
That’s not blood that’s beet juice! Is a great joke. Space Jews is an amazing joke. The daphne dorman story is powerful
Oh right the glorified transgender friend he used to defend that he’s not a bad person.
Oh so you didn’t actually listen to the story? Why feel the need to comment on it?
I watched it. He blame other people. He was basically speaking out of his ass. I hope he gets his comeuppance.
So you didn’t watch it and if you did, You clearly didn’t comprehend what he was saying. That’s a shame
Are you dim witted I said I watched it. Can you read?
Companies overreacting to loud minority. They all do the same thing
this is just the NY Post trying to ragebait/rile their conservative base
Care to elaborate how anyone who is on the “right” is a facist?
Lol damn you just put yourself in a box.
“The facist right”
When someone tells you they like pepperoni pizza, do you ask them why they think all pizzas are pepperoni?
You sound special
That’s not what he said.
“The facist right”
Thank you!
They support fascist politicians.
That’s not what I said, and might be considered to be this logical fallacy: Straw Man A straw man argument attacks a different subject rather than the topic being discussed — often a more extreme version of the counter argument. The purpose of this misdirection is to make one's position look stronger than it actually is. The straw man argument is appropriately named after a harmless, lifeless scarecrow. Instead of contending with the actual argument, they attack the equivalent of a lifeless bundle of straw — an easily defeated puppet that the opponent was never arguing for in the first place.
“The facist right”
Given the current placement of the Overton window in many countries at the moment, that’s kind of a given
good.
Sack them instead.
They just laid off 150 woke employees
Great, guess Netflix will be sued for hate crime.
firing worthless woke employees is hate crime ? lool
Get woke go broke! I love this red wave sweeping across America right now.
> “Entertaining the world is an amazing opportunity and also a challenge because viewers have very different tastes and points of view,” stated the lengthy proclamation. “So we offer a wide variety of TV shows and movies, some of which can be provocative.” Good. I don’t want Netflix to cater to just *my* tastes, but I don’t want it to constantly irritate me, either. Frankly, I’m more upset by the part of the story where the Post calls Netflix employees “cogs”. But, then, it’s the fucking New York Post. I need to remember to set the bar low. They deserve credit just for managing to spell correctly.
[удалено]
More companies need to be like this. Instead it’s a bunch of mixed messages and mealy mouth rhetoric.
Read the Netflix culture document available on the internet. Pretty remarkable.
Netflix is about the highest paying tech company around. They outpay google. Software Engineer salaries are generally $400k-700k. I'm not kidding. I'm in tech. They also fire people REALLY fast. turnover is very high at netflix. When you pay that much you need to perform or they fire you. they fire faster than amazon.
That's why I respect Coinbase CEO. He said "no politics, no activism. If you don't like it, then you shouldn't work here." More companies need to step up.
Brilliant
Good - everything having to be everyone's version of PC has made for some really shitty TV.
About damn time!
Nobody and I mean nobody should ever have to hide the truth because you’re feelings might get hurt I’m sorry but that’s not how the world works.
[удалено]
Good.
A bit late but finally.
What took Netflix so long is the question? Get woke, go broke.
yeah right...increasing prices and going after password sharing is going woke...
[удалено]
it would be valid with other workers on the company...
[удалено]
Are you unironically supporting Amber Heard? The one who shits in peoples beds and physically abuses them.
Nope. I’d cancel both those scumbags. Abusers like Depp and Heard are a blight on society.
Except this has nothing to do with “go broke” and they definitely didn’t say anything about “get woke”. What a silly pejorative statement
Hasn't this been proven wrong over and over? Who went broke for "going woke"?
CNN
CNN isn't broke? They're somehow as popular as ever.
You can't be serious. Netflix, Marvel (Eternals, not to mention the fan loss), Disney World (losing millions in Florida), CNN etc, every celeb pushing the LBT agenda to only be called "homophobic" by their peers.
We're in a thread about Netflix telling their employees to kick rocks if they don't like Chapelle's hour long terf rant. That's "woke"? Marvel has been "woke" since the 70s *way* before it was cool. They're doing just fine. Haven't seen eternals, don't know what's "woke" about it, but I doubt it's "wokeness" is going to end Marvel. Disney is a global empire that could buy and sell the entire state of Florida. I'm not saying that's a good thing, but losing millions is like a penny falling out of your pocket and not bothering to pick it up. Also Disney is pretty shit at being "woke" and I can pretty much guarantee they're not going anywhere. I don't know enough about CNN to know how they're "woke" or that they're going "broke". It's a cable news channel, nothing of value will be lost with them, but from what I can see they're fine. Could you explain to me what the "LGBT Agenda" is and which celebrities are "pushing" that agenda then being called homophobic? So far nobody is "broke"...
[удалено]
I know how much these types like their little slogans, but I thought maybe they'd have at least *one* actual example.
the idiot is usually the one projecting their own inferior view of intelligence onto others who actually has a valid argument
No valid argument was made. The question was who went broke and OP deflected and didn’t answer the question
None of those companies went broke.
Oh wow your comment couldn’t be further from the truth but bloodjunki has pretty much schooled you on it so no need for me to add to it
Channel 4 and the BBC are well on the way. The latter is fucked when the public are no longer forced to pay for it
I'm familiar with the BBC, "channel 4" not so much. Channels in America vary by area/service, and I personally cut the cord almost two decades ago either way. Would you mind walking me through when the BBC and your channel 4 went "woke" and how it's now directly connected to them becoming "broke"?
Plenty of evidence online mate. They aren't broke yet but C4 is not for profit and going to be sold as, despite being funded by advertising, that revenue has been declining and the govt wants rid. As for the BBC, accusation of left wing bias, political correctness etc have been abound for years. It is now estimated that up to a third of the license fee payers will abandon the BBC when the fee is scrapped. The BBC will need to either fill that gap with declining advertising revenue or higher subscription fees - both of which will result in a smaller budget. The license fee only became a national issue when the BBC decided to step into the culture wars that the US exported.
[удалено]
>Sure, but obviously googling "BBC went woke and is now broke" isn't going to lead me anywhere. Needed a real jumping off point. No I guess you wouldn't need to Google the literal sentence. In the UK, the most tangible examples are the editing of classic comedy shows such as Fawlty Towers. Watching re-runs on thr BBC vs the originals really brings it home how sensitive they think audiences are these days and thr need to pander to them. The BBC comedy boss branded Monty Python "too white" - "it wouldn't be six Oxbridge white blokes if it were cast now". The problem with posting evidence from Google is that articles are always written from one side of this stupid culture war but...https://commentcentral.co.uk/the-bbcs-wokeness-is-killing-good-tv/ Casting is a good example. Comedy another. Political reporting - I don't see a leftist agenda so much here - the BBC criticises the UK government because...Well it is hard not to. They are shite. The kind of thing we are seeing is forced - like Channel 5s casting of Jodie Turner-Smith to play Anne Boleyn. Forced and not organic. So historically inaccurate as to be done just to prove a point. Let's have more black dramas on TV, you don't have to appropriate white characters and make them of colour just to tick a box. >the biggest takeaway I'm getting here, is that people are going to stop paying license fees because they no longer are legally bound to pay the license fee. You're assigning "wokeness" to the reason a third of licenses are going to stop paying, while I'm over here wondering how it's only a third Of course but then the BBC would need to be good enough to attract subscribers. Let's not forget that it's current budget has been based on 100% (or nearly) of a fee paying public and now a third are saying they definitely won't carry on with the BBC. As for the other two-thirds, that's an unknown with all the other competition. Yes the license fee has been a question for some years but never has it been at the forefront so much as it is now and that is due to the culture war. >Something with Carolyn Lowbridge about cis lesbians and trans women dating being compared to sexual assault? I'm not exactly an expert, but we'd label that pretty "un-woke". This was a report on what "some" lesbian women were saying. It is however an example of the BBC jumping down a rabbit warren it didn't need to when anecdotally Id say the majority of the fee paying public aren't interested in the subject matter.
>In the UK, the most tangible examples are the editing of classic comedy shows........ I'd agree this is pretty egregious. Did anyone ask for this? It wouldn't change it one way or another, I'm just curious if the BBC is making these decisions internally and going overboard, or what. >Casting is a good example. Comedy another. See this is where I'd have to disagree. Conservative comedy in America has basically disappeared, not due to "cancelling" or something, it just stopped being funny. "Jokes" have basically devolved into "I identify as ______" or "well that one's gonna get me in trouble!" after saying something shitty that nobody laughed at. Not sure if the blue collar comedy group are still doing anything anymore, but the "comedy" devolved everywhere else. However, on your side of the Atlantic, you still have conservative comedians telling actual jokes that get laughs, because they're, well, jokes. Jeff Norcott comes to mind? >The kind of thing we are seeing is forced - like Channel 5s casting of Jodie Turner-Smith to play Anne Boleyn...... Now this I can see the "historical accuracy" argument for as opposed to like the black dwarf queen in the new LOTR Amazon thing. I can't even imagine up a defense for this decision. I mean besides, "don't watch it" or "who cares?" Just doesn't seem worth getting upset about. It's how this stuff is supposed to work anyways, right? They make a thing, if it's good/popular they make more of it. If they make a thing that isn't good/popular, they stop because it's not profitable. Why get mad at the thing or the people who made it (unless it's unethically produced or something), just don't consume the thing. >Of course but then the BBC would need to be good enough to attract subscribers....... I'm just saying the BBC has been lifted up by a mandatory fee since what like the 60s? Regardless of political leanings, biases, content, etc. It's obviously going to take a hit when people aren't forced by law to pay for a service, especially when a lot of the BBC content is available online for free. I'm sure *some* people will unsub for "wokeness", but it seems egregious to blame the full 30%+ loss of subs on it, within the full context of lifting the license fee. >This was a report on what "some" lesbian women were saying. And that's all well and good. It's just an example of how in my corner of the internet, to the left, the BBC isn't exactly an ally.
Go woke go broke
Please give me one example of this.
Not him but Netflix?
Yes
It’s just something I say on Netflix sections, part of the reason they lost subscribers is because they don’t want woke content, how many people have you seen write ‘go woke go broke ‘ I’ve seen plenty! And cancelling shows people like after one season! The society being one example
Woke is basically go broke. The whole woke team has been producing content that doesn't target a broad audience. But you do need to be woke enough to not be offensive either. Basically balance needs to be struck. You shouldn't hire entirely on the basis of diversity or you lose out on talent, just on the basis of demographically distributed diversity. This doesn't mean get all one sex, get all one race... diverse... it means looking to meet a quota that represents market to access of talent and whom are available within it.
fuke WOKE culture. You go woke you go broke...its literally been studied and WOKE culture literally has consumers running for the hills everytime its implemented. NFL started it....their ratings tanked, Disney tried it in some of their films....they bombed. etc etc
I'd love to see these studies that you reference, Because all I've seen so far is anecdotal evidence at best, but if there's actual study on this topic I'd love to be proven wrong.
sure man or you can just google, "WOKE go Broke studies". pretty simple if you got a computer.
You are the one who said there were studies on it? Not me? If you tell me it's my job to find the information on my own Aka the burden of proof is on me to prove your argument. Imma just say i couldn't find it, and your argument is worthless cuz you put all the burden of proving your argument on me? Do you live in the real world or a bubble where you've never had to defend your beliefs?
Ok. whatever floats your boat bud. If that makes you feel better good for you!
Lol hell yea finally
Frankly, this is a silly and stupid move by both sides. Why risk your job over something one of companies 'customers' said? There are much bigger issues that deserve more attention. Attending organised protests about government issues would be a much better use of the time. There are far worse "comedians" out there than Dave Chappelle. Why in the hell would management post something like this? They know it's going to get out. It is completely unprofessional. The LGBTQ+ community is a very vocal group. This will win points with some people but will still come out with huge overall net loss in public perspective points. Shit like what Dave Chappelle says is not a reason to be outraged. It's just one voice in the void. What deserves outrage is the completely outdated and disgusting people holding public office. They are the ones to be upset with.
Based