want me to define the word woke? define the word "woman".
that's all. leave it at that. if they get combative and refuse, you continue the attack
you're just proving my point. this is wokeness. you take this anti-science position where you won't even define a term that is basic biological fact, that humanity has known and accepted from early evolution of primates... because you're woke.
The idea that you're performing in front of an audience and winning them over is just 190 proof copeahol. Anybody who can be exposed to a square jawed 6' bearded hulk in a dress and not immediately understand what's wrong is not somebody you're going to win over with statistics and logic.
this is just factually incorrect. facebook, google, twitter, etc, have already done studies on this shit. it's not about convincing that individual... it's about convincing onlookers.
shit, look at daryl davis, black dude who has sit-downs in bars and shares some beers with staunch KKK members and neo-nazis, gets them to turn in their robes and quit. he's been successful with over 200 of them. the left didn't care about what he was doing... until he went and started talking publicly about it in front of big audiences. that made them freak the fuck out so badly that they physically attacked him and had to be booted out by armed security. it's why they shout down ben shapiro and candace owens and charlie kirk and michael knowles. it's why, at these speaking engagements, many of them now refuse to engage. at this point, they know engaging only makes them look dumber.
it's why the media refuses to address any of the biden scandals. or the WEF scandals. or the FBI. or election fraud. they address none of it on the merits. if they address it at all, it's just summary denials.
I wish people would stop using "woke" as a cutesy gotcha and instead call out what's really happening. Call them anti-white racists, call them anti-human ghouls, call them destroyers of society. When they push back, tell them to eat shit and die. All this playful beating around the bush does is let them gain more and more ground every day.
Better yet, simply refuse to cooperate at all. Become Sam Hyde. Get invited onto their propaganda shows and spend the entire time pretending your mic is broken, or just start reading the back of a cereal box until they cut you off.
A lot of the "opposition" to this are just grifters and people more afraid of right-wing backlash than the actual left. That's why the pushback is often so lame.
A bit of backstory. Just before we went on air, Briahna Joy Gray was on a hot mic. I heard her demeaning parenting in general in colorful and nasty terms, stating parents only have kids in order to perpetuate their own narcissism. Robby responded, "There are some good ones and some bad ones." As a mom of six, including a newborn, this threw me off just a bit. Not an excuse, just a reality. I’m human!
As for wokeness, here's an actual definition: A radical belief system suggesting that our institutions are built around discrimination, and claiming that all disparity is a result of that discrimination. It seeks a radical redefinition of society in which equality of group result is the endpoint, enforced by an angry mob.
Wait let me see if I have this right. The people who can’t define the word “woman” are trying to dunk on someone else for struggling to define a word?
The irony is that people on the Right struggle to define woke because they’re trying to do the Left a favor by drawing some kind of distinction between the average leftist and a woke person. There is no distinction. Anyone on the political Left is woke. That’s all.
Not really, it's more top down than bottom up. Protests don't work when the instruments of real power don't back them, as J6 should have made obvious to everyone. "Angry mob" implies a populist sentiment behind it. In reality, it's more like angry mobs of CEOs.
It's incredibly easy to define to a normal person, but absolutely impossible to define to somebody who looks at sentences as opportunities to pick out individual words to attack you with.
'A cult-like belief in contemporary collectivism, does your audience need the definition of collectivism?'
That might be a bit monotone and condescending for a TV interview, but keep the pressure on the interviewer when she's asking underhanded questions. The question is underhanded because the interviewer deliberately interrupts a train-of-thought with an open question, and doesn't have softball questions to demonstrate that she, the interviewer, has researched the leading pro and con viewpoints on wokism. Also, any ambitious guest should have the goal of patronizing a normie audience.
stop playing their game.
that's all. leave it at that. if they get combative and refuse, you continue the attack
This doesnt work because "what is a woman" is hardcoded as a permanent enemy marker, which overrides all other possible responses.
you don't need to turn them. you're making a fool of them in front of everyone. stop trying to convince one person. convince hundreds or thousands.
why do you think leftists grab all these sockpuppets and strawmen who don't fight back?
The idea that you're performing in front of an audience and winning them over is just 190 proof copeahol. Anybody who can be exposed to a square jawed 6' bearded hulk in a dress and not immediately understand what's wrong is not somebody you're going to win over with statistics and logic.
this is just factually incorrect. facebook, google, twitter, etc, have already done studies on this shit. it's not about convincing that individual... it's about convincing onlookers.
shit, look at daryl davis, black dude who has sit-downs in bars and shares some beers with staunch KKK members and neo-nazis, gets them to turn in their robes and quit. he's been successful with over 200 of them. the left didn't care about what he was doing... until he went and started talking publicly about it in front of big audiences. that made them freak the fuck out so badly that they physically attacked him and had to be booted out by armed security. it's why they shout down ben shapiro and candace owens and charlie kirk and michael knowles. it's why, at these speaking engagements, many of them now refuse to engage. at this point, they know engaging only makes them look dumber.
it's why the media refuses to address any of the biden scandals. or the WEF scandals. or the FBI. or election fraud. they address none of it on the merits. if they address it at all, it's just summary denials.
Didn't read a word of this and you'll never understand why. Total dipshit reaction.
I wish people would stop using "woke" as a cutesy gotcha and instead call out what's really happening. Call them anti-white racists, call them anti-human ghouls, call them destroyers of society. When they push back, tell them to eat shit and die. All this playful beating around the bush does is let them gain more and more ground every day.
Better yet, simply refuse to cooperate at all. Become Sam Hyde. Get invited onto their propaganda shows and spend the entire time pretending your mic is broken, or just start reading the back of a cereal box until they cut you off.
Stop respecting genocidal monsters.
A lot of the "opposition" to this are just grifters and people more afraid of right-wing backlash than the actual left. That's why the pushback is often so lame.
Title credit: https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1635981019558887424
Not really, it's more top down than bottom up. Protests don't work when the instruments of real power don't back them, as J6 should have made obvious to everyone. "Angry mob" implies a populist sentiment behind it. In reality, it's more like angry mobs of CEOs.
It's incredibly easy to define to a normal person, but absolutely impossible to define to somebody who looks at sentences as opportunities to pick out individual words to attack you with.
'A cult-like belief in contemporary collectivism, does your audience need the definition of collectivism?'
That might be a bit monotone and condescending for a TV interview, but keep the pressure on the interviewer when she's asking underhanded questions. The question is underhanded because the interviewer deliberately interrupts a train-of-thought with an open question, and doesn't have softball questions to demonstrate that she, the interviewer, has researched the leading pro and con viewpoints on wokism. Also, any ambitious guest should have the goal of patronizing a normie audience.