• Xenforo Cloud is upgrading us to version 2.3.8 on Monday February 16th, 2026 at 12:00 AM PST. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

Exposing the Grift: Go Woke Go Broke

Strijfy said:
just like' racist' and bigot' has become the go-to catch cry of the woke brigade in attempt to shut people up.
' Bigot' is especially hilarious .
'a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.'
Considering what happened to Charlie Kirk, the hypocrisy is just breath taking.
Click to expand...

No.

If someone is called a racist but isn't, prove he isn't racist. You have tried and failed to do that with Charlie Kirk because he was racist and there's just too much evidence.
 
Fox by the Sea said:
Isn't the one doing the calling supposed to prove he's racist? or fascist, or nazi, or whatever the name is?
Click to expand...

And they do. People are free to dispute the allegations.

Saying "you call everyone racist" doesn't actually do that.
 
deviake said:
He lays out in detail how many "woke" movies are highly successful and why and as well as the ones that aren't and how the "anti woke" reviewers are disingenuous in their critiques, such as The Critical Drinker.



Cliffs:

- Reviewers like The Critical Drinker couch valid criticism in culture war, anti-woke bullshit, basically a lot of baiting and riling up their audience. The Critical Drinker in particular he cites several example of and breaks down where he's saying valid things and where he's misconstruing things. He also shows a lot of comments echoing him and spreading divisive rhetoric

- There's shit loads of "woke" movies that are successful but they're conveniently ignored by the anti-woke types. Even some that aren't considered good by most still made shit loads of money. I'm not giving specific examples that he uses in the video because it'd take too long. He cites a lot of data here.

- Yasuke, the black samurai in the new Assassin's Creed was a real person and there's even a painting from the (edit) 1600s that's thought to depict him, and Japanese games have already had him as a character so putting him in a video game isn't even new. He has a lengthy section on this

- He mentions specific examples like the live action Mulan that's been called woke when some of the things she does, she does in the original movie AND there's all sorts of fantastic power in it anyway

- He cites many specific examples, breaks down "woke", and breaks down the meaning of, "go woke, go broke"



My cliffs can't really do it justice. Great watch IMO.
Click to expand...

lol that game is a massive failure
 
SuperAlly said:
Make more money than Disney marvel, Indiana jones etc these days
Click to expand...
" the prophet league ": a team of white blue bearded superguys flattered hobos with bulldozer and flamethrowers. "Agent Orange" : a vigilante in orange gold costume targeting the tranvestites....I could write so many plots
 
Fox by the Sea said:
or dismiss them. not every accusation deserves the effort of a rebuke.
Click to expand...

This is true.

However, when someone takes that road exclusively without even pretending to weigh the evidence, it isn't very compelling.
 
 
Loiosh said:
No.

If someone is called a racist but isn't, prove he isn't racist. You have tried and failed to do that with Charlie Kirk because he was racist and there's just too much evidence.
Click to expand...
Thats not really how it works, imo. YOu cant really prove somebody isnt someone accusing them of being unless you know what the accusation is. But at any rate, the definition of racist is:

rac·ist

/ˈrāsəst/
https://www.google.com/search?clien...2ahUKEwiq8Z3-_O6PAxVumO4BHekjIS4Q3eEDegQIQBAO

  1. characterized by or showing prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
    "we are investigating complaints about racist abuse"
noun

  1. a person who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.



Charlie Kirk wasnt racist because none of his position or anything he argued were discriminitory or antagonistic towards anyone due to their race. I know what some of the accusations are. I know you must know that at the very least some of the quotes attributed to him are distorted or without context. I cant go over all of them. But its easy to pick a few.

One of the biggest ones was about thinking the Civil Rights Act was a mistake. The question, is, can someone be critical of the CRA and think it was a mistake without being racist? Ultimately, he thinks it had more negative outcomes than positive ones for the black community. One can argue this is wrong. But it is not a racist position.

Another was the oft repeated quote about black pilots. But, again, its without any context. His point isnt that black people are unqualified. Hes saying that if TWA goes ahead and institutes the quota they talked about, which was raising black pilots from the current 3% to 40%, then he said he'd wonder if they were qualified. This isnt a racist statement, because it has nothing to do with race and everything to do with dei quotas. Again, once can argue hes wrong, or that enforcing racial diversity quotas doesnt mean hiring someone less qualified to meet these quotas. But it is not a racist position. He'd draw the exact same position for any other enforced quota. You'd do it too, under the right circumstances. If the NBA suddenly decided that from now on 40% of their players would be Mexican, it isnt racist to wonder if the sudden surge of Mexican basketball players would be as good as other potential players.

Im sure theres more. But at the end of the day, I know you've been around long enough to remember that quote mining was literally the exact tactic Rush Limbaugh was employing in the 90's. Just take a quote, or a random passage without context and draw a conclusion solely from that. This is literally the exact thing thats happening now and its frustrating as all fuck to see such a transparent tactic spammed so frequently by so many people.

Its not uncommon for left leaning and progressive people to infer racism almost immediately solely because they disagree with someone's position about a racial topic. Kirk was obviously rabidly anti any form of DEI, and he thought it would lead to less qualified people being hired. He might be wrong, but that isnt racist.

Just one last note, another one of the positions is about Martin Luthor King Jr being an awful person. Again, this often evokes immediate accusations of racism. But unless you can show why Kirk thinks hes awful because hes black, theres no real direction to go. But, is it really a far fetched position that a really religious person would think a guy that frequently cheated on his wife with prostitutes was a bad person? The color of his skin has nothing to do with it. Even so, he can be wrong, but wrong is not the same thing as racist and all too often the two terms indistinguishable in topics like this.
 
deviake said:
Oh my god bro, muh context, lmao
Click to expand...
Sterling contribution from the fool that started this thread doomed to fail, as per usual.

Stopped trying to defend the indefensible though, which is a start.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,281,631
Messages
58,381,872
Members
176,017
Latest member
KTFOPerformance

Share this page

Back
Top