Is there a trend of wokes-in-denial?

skykiii

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jun 17, 2018
Just wondering, because lately I've been involved in a number of conversations that went something like this:

STEP ONE: Someone (we'll call them "the boy") offhandedly mentions wokeness.

STEP TWO: Someone (we'll call them "the girl") questions what that even means.

STEP THREE: The boy tries to explain it, and the girl will constantly interrupt with some new factor that indicates she in fact actually knows what wokeness is, but is trying to pretend either she doesn't or whatever. Common trends in her arguments are "people are making the actions of a small handful of people out to be a large case" or "why does this bother you so much?" (the latter will be asked even if the boy is being academic and its clear the girl is way more worked up than the boy is).

STEP FOUR: The girl gets very temperamental and finally goes on a tirade.

Now, the next bit could go one of two ways:

STEP FIVE-A is the boy is a pussy and apologizes for everything as if this is his fault.

STEP FIVE-B though is what my question pertains to: The boy turns out to actually have a spine and calls out the girl's bullshit, how she's been clearly duplicituous this whole convo, and if she has a history if shit, this is when it gets brought up.

Fucking inevitably, the girl will suddenly be all like "yeah actually, I'm anti-woke too. I hate it. I just thought you were talking about something else" or some shit like that.

And its actually amazing to me how often this happens, that the minute these people (who are not always literally girls) will suddenly claim to be anti-woke the minute you turn out to have a spine.

TL;DR has anyone else noticed a trend of "will suddenly pretend to be anti-woke when confronted even when they've made it clear they're totally woke?"
 
Woke types can't defend their beliefs, so they test the waters to see if you'll be an easy push-over they can bully. If not they'll cave and pretend they're "anti-woke". If this same scenario plays out when they have other assholes to back them up, assume they're going to go bonkers on you. They're evil human beings.
 
ust wondering, because lately I've been involved in a number of conversations that went something like this:

STEP ONE: Someone (we'll call them "the boy") offhandedly mentions wokeness.

STEP TWO: Someone (we'll call them "the girl") questions what that even means.
Why the fuck are you stupid enough to share your thoughts and feelings with women? You should be talking to a tree. It will be much more receptive, and it is objectively more intelligent. TLDR: Women are fundamentally stupid (low-IQ).
 
Why the fuck are you stupid enough to share your thoughts and feelings with women? You should be talking to a tree. It will be much more receptive, and it is objectively more intelligent. TLDR: Women are fundamentally stupid (low-IQ).

I'd say we're of pretty average intelligence. We just have a low tolerance for retards.

Is this some kind of scenario OP has been in before? I've never had this happen. The only woketard I knew was a huge fake male feminist who used it as pussy bait but would treat anyone else like trash. I think a lot of woketards are not who you think they are. There's a lot of clout chasing going on and they'd sell out their wokeness for the right price. Look at that BLM leader who bought those nice houses in white areas to get away from the ghetto. How's that for keeping it real?
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Kapros
I'd say we're of pretty average intelligence. We just have a low tolerance for retards.
Well, obviously you'd assess your own intelligence to be at least "average." Part of having a low IQ is that you are too stupid to understand your own condition. The reason you think you qualify as "average" is that you are comparing yourself to other women. Yes, among women, you probably are of only average stupidity. However, compared to men, you are inferior and very stupid!
 
Why the fuck are you stupid enough to share your thoughts and feelings with women?
> Assumes a person hypothetically called "the girl" must be a literal girl.
> There's a note in the final paragraph saying that "the girl" is not necessarily a literal girl.


You shouldn't be questioning other people's intelligence with reading skills like that.

Is this some kind of scenario OP has been in before?
I mentioned as much at the beginning that I've started seeing this a lot.
 
> Assumes a person hypothetically called "the girl" must be a literal girl.
> There's a note in the final paragraph saying that "the girl" is not necessarily a literal girl.


You shouldn't be questioning other people's intelligence with reading skills like that.


I mentioned as much at the beginning that I've started seeing this a lot.
I didn't assume any of the shit you projected onto me, you fat, stupid cunt!
 
There's a sort sort of lefty trend where people pretend that the idea of "woke" doesn't exist, and that it's just a scarecrow buzzword that other people have willed into existence.

That's true to some extent and the term's usage gets stretched pretty wide, it's not something I'd be using in an academic paper, but imo it's a lot easier to objectively define and identify than the majority of garbage you see getting passed around modern progressive circles.

It's just the usual. When spergs really want to believe something they can show you a cork board with a million strings on it proving how actually being gender queer is a totally true and valid concept and you must be a blind idiot if you don't believe in it, but as soon as it's something they find inconvenient they turn into trogg the based caveman and can't understand your contrived, ethereal reasoning.
 
There are like 5 threads about women being scared of confrontation made every week. I literally remember reading this exact same discussion yesterday. A woman won't debate you about if wokeness even exists, let alone what it is. If you accuse a woman of being woke, she will pretend it's not a real thing, then she will claim you misunderstand the whole issue (while deliberately not providing her own interpretation), then she will accuse you of being overdramatic and aggressive about inconsequential things and only then, optionally, if you make the effort to point out multiple instances of her woke behavior, she will shut down and deny everything because your attempt to debate against dogma makes her feel threatened.

Doesn't necessarily have to be a woman, it can just as well be a "man" raised by the modern social and school system to behave like one.

At a larger scale I'd say dogmatic progressivism has become so widespread in western society that some deeply indoctrinated people do in fact not even acknowledge its existence, they take it completely for granted. Just like 100 years ago a European person would never spare a thought to the fact that every person they met in their life all had white skin.
 
> Assumes a person hypothetically called "the girl" must be a literal girl.
> There's a note in the final paragraph saying that "the girl" is not necessarily a literal girl.
Don’t call her “the girl” if you don’t want people thinking she’s supposed to be representative of women.

In regard to your OP, no I haven’t come across that personally because I don’t associate with people who operate in bad faith. That is the term for what you’re describing, by the way, “arguing in bad faith”. You should just ask her point blank “I thought you supported trans rights, don’t you?” then just say “oh because it sounded like you didn’t”. Or do what I do, and don’t associate with people who are out to get you.
 
Back