I don't buy that all literature has served the purpose of speaking out for the weak and against the strong.
The words "weak" and "strong" do not appear in my writing. The phrase I used was "Stories have ALWAYS discussed contemporary issues of their time."
Along with some notable examples. Which I think you would find is quite accurate.
Furthermore, I did not say that all literature (media) focuses on this. I said that "most media is inherently political."
"Oh, gender norms were an issue in Ancient Greece, and gender norms are an issue today; therefore, all social issues today are the same social issues through history." I think that's a faulty line of thinking that attempts to extrapolate a few historical points to a host of contemporary issues.
The point is not that all social issues are the same, but connecting to the original conversation of "anti-woke" sentiment. The idea that works were criticized for simply being bringing up political issues as opposed to being discussed on their merits. I'm sure many a humorless nobleman would have said Lysistrata was "woke attack on men" and "giving their wives silly ideas like standing up to their husbands", etc. As well as the aforementioned point that much of media has always been political.
The earliest forms of literature exalted the strong. If you've ever read Nietzsche's "On the Genealogy of Morals," you know that a lot of ancient literature was drafted by the strong, by the rich, by the elites, and that they saw themselves as strong and righteous simply by virtue of being the elite.
Is this not political? Elites stroking their own ego writing about how great they are and how they deserve their power and wealth? This is the media I referred to as some "praising political media that supports their narrative, claiming it is actually non-political." Propaganda even. Any noble that wrote anything in dissent would have been thoroughly rebuked for even daring to question their consensus on the matter without even considering their opinions. Have you seen what happens when rich people get criticized literally ever? Do they ever address the substance of the matter or wave it off as peasants being jealous of their wealth.
This hits to the main point that you've been avoiding: Certain media criticism has always been dismissed out of hand for one reason or another. Whether its criticizing nobles hoarding wealth or general notions of equality or having gay people in a video game. It has always happened. It's just called "being woke" nowadays.
Nietzsche wasn't an antisemite himself (in my opinion, and most academics' opinions), but he lived in a somewhat antisemitic period in history, and was fond of using coded language.
Side note:
Bruh, you just said "he wasn't anti-semitic, he was just surrounded by anti-semites and liked anti-semitic slang"
