Any time someone invokes the word "woke" in protest of lazy writing in movies and television, someone who wants to shut the conversation down will say, "What is woke?," as though they've never heard the word before. How do you respond to this sort of disingenuous attempt at redirection?
shareBaby don't hurt me!
shareI publicly call them out for playing The Hatchling - it’s a Leftist rhetorical trick to derail the conversation, get you running around to prove the blatantly obvious, and ultimately try and gaslight you and other readers into thinking Woke isn’t a thing.
Great description of The Hatchling: https://youtu.be/nxQqaG4gl9A?si=JybLhRYBcANHJ9es
The ultimate example of a Hatchling on this site is Skavau. You’ll notice that his posts are a constant bombardment of stupid questions based on premises he pulls out of his ass… yet expects you to answer.
He’ll appear now to try and defend himself and maintain his cover, watch…
>The ultimate example of a Hatchling on this site is Skavau. You’ll notice that his posts are a constant bombardment of stupid questions based on premises he pulls out of his ass… yet expects you to answer.
My questions are rooted from unfounded claims and presuppositions that others make in their assertions. If you make claims, people will naturally respond with follow-up questions based on attempt to dissect their assumptions. The assumption that your assertions about reality are "obvious" and thus do not require any form of substantiation or justification is beyond narcissistic.
Your attitudes betrays an attitude of "I must not be questioned". "I can't be wrong and no-one should question me". It's revolting.
There’s nothing genuine about your questions, and that quickly becomes apparent to anyone who answers them… which they do in good faith until it becomes apparent that you’re not the bastion of Socratic interrogation that you pretend to be, but rather a regime bitch on a gaslighting mission.
The problem you have is that you’re not bright enough to pull off the sophistry you’re attempting, and so you get found out a few posts in. Now there’s a growing contingent familiar with your basic-bitch bag of rhetorical tricks.
It’s fun watching that happen, it’s fun to tip off your latest victim, and it’s fun watching you fume when you get exposed.
Now, write a defensive screed in which you completely rewrite history and play the victim. Go…
>There’s nothing genuine about your questions, and that quickly becomes apparent to anyone who answers them… which they do in good faith until it becomes apparent that you’re not the bastion of Socratic interrogation that you pretend to be, but rather a regime bitch on a gaslighting mission.
I haven't really asked many questions in this thread. I've invited Sandy to expand on their position and made a point that detracters of 'woke' hold varying positions on what 'woke', or what examples of 'woke' is - making it tedious to address their claims as you have to often assume the boundaries for what they regard as 'woke'.
I also laughed at Corbells comical claims about men not liking lesbians in their content, or his clutching at pearls that Thor isn't depicted as nordic in one of the most commercialised and commodified franchises on the planet.
>It’s fun watching that happen, it’s fun to tip off your latest victim, and it’s fun watching you fume when you get exposed.
Merely making ad hominem against me is no more "exposure" than if I just insulted you across the forum wherever you interacted. You are hostile to be questioned. You don't like anyone disagreeing with you and throw your toys out of the pram when you are. You haven't addressed many of my points in the other threads, most of which weren't any form of question - but direct responses to your claims. You also argued in a duplicitous way. Praising the OP for making an observation about 'woke', but when pointed out that the observation is flawed, roll back and act as if you never concurred with his observation at all and hurl abuse at others for thinking that you did.
>Now, write a defensive screed in which you completely rewrite history and play the victim. Go…
Man, is this edit a part of your script? "Haha I can edit my post to point out how my detractor.... *defends themselves*?"
It doesn't matter what I say, what points I make, what the topic is. You will literally reply almost identically to anything I say. Just me responding to you, or anyone else is... apparently, evidence that I'm wrong (according to you).
hahaha, s/he played the victim again.
share"Responding to someone's claims is playing the victim"
You two genuinely act like toddlers.
NO ONE is buying your shit. NO ONE.
shareWhat "shit" is this?
sharehahahahaha.
shareMake general accusations, and I will ask you to back them up.
shareAnd ignore any answers.
shareYou spend much of your time refusing to answer, or cry that I asked you questions in the first place.
shareAnd ignore teh answers.
shareI do not ignore any answers that you've given. You mostly refuse to answer many of my questions though. Just repeating "ignore teh answers" isn't an argument. It just is flat out not true.
shareSure you did. Again and again.
shareI do not ignore any answers that you've given. You mostly refuse to answer many of my questions though. Just repeating "Sure you did. Again and again" isn't an argument. It just is flat out not true.
Yes, it is true.
shareI do not ignore any answers that you've given. You mostly refuse to answer many of my questions though. Just saying "Yes, it is true." isn't an argument. It just is flat out not true.
shareWelcome to what happens when you cry wolf, ya lying sack of shit.
shareSomeone asks a question, gets an answer, SOMETIMES they ask a second questin immediately.
The point of the second question is to clarify something, AND THEN THE PERSON ADDRESSES THE POINT, and the coversation moves forward.
With you, you dont do that. You just keep asking "questions".
If there is no interest in the question, if you never get around to addressing the point, then the "questions" are not actuallly questions, but nothing but rhetorical devices used to stonewall.
This is the point. You will now demonstrate it by NOT ADDRESSING THE POINT.
>With you, you dont do that. You just keep asking "questions".
People on here continually just make unsupported claim after unsupported claim. I don't choose my respondents.
>If there is no interest in the question, if you never get around to addressing the point, then the "questions" are not actuallly questions, but nothing but rhetorical devices used to stonewall.
Provide me of some instances where I have refused to address the "point", whatever it is, please.
>This is the point. You will now demonstrate it by NOT ADDRESSING THE POINT.
I've observed you, to me and to others, repeatedly stonewall by feigning outrage and indignation over the other person's temerity to question you.
I've also seen you, despite complaining about others supposedly doing it, drag threads completely off-topic. You once did so brazenly in my thread, responding with an utterly flippant "So?" when I called you out on it. I remind you I am in two separate chains in this thread with you and you have completely abandoned them. At the point of abandonment, I have asked no questions but provided my position.
Yet you scarper off, as usual, like a little coward.
When I cease replying to you, it is out of boredom with your troll boi games.
I've told you that many times. For you to pretend it is anything else is you lying.
I don't care. You make claims that you have not backed up, and refuse to answer them and instead make excuses for why you won't - I will simply repeat my prior questions and arguments.
>With you, you dont do that. You just keep asking "questions".
People on here continually just make unsupported claim after unsupported claim. I don't choose my respondents.
>If there is no interest in the question, if you never get around to addressing the point, then the "questions" are not actuallly questions, but nothing but rhetorical devices used to stonewall.
Provide me of some instances where I have refused to address the "point", whatever it is, please.
>This is the point. You will now demonstrate it by NOT ADDRESSING THE POINT.
I've observed you, to me and to others, repeatedly stonewall by feigning outrage and indignation over the other person's temerity to question you.
I've also seen you, despite complaining about others supposedly doing it, drag threads completely off-topic. You once did so brazenly in my thread, responding with an utterly flippant "So?" when I called you out on it. I remind you I am in two separate chains in this thread with you and you have completely abandoned them. At the point of abandonment, I have asked no questions but provided my position.
Yet you scarper off, as usual, like a little coward.
Blah, blah, blah.
Address the point seriously, sans shit talk or don't bother.
I don't care. You make claims that you have not backed up, and refuse to answer them and instead make excuses for why you won't - I will simply repeat my prior questions and arguments.
>With you, you dont do that. You just keep asking "questions".
People on here continually just make unsupported claim after unsupported claim. I don't choose my respondents.
>If there is no interest in the question, if you never get around to addressing the point, then the "questions" are not actuallly questions, but nothing but rhetorical devices used to stonewall.
Provide me of some instances where I have refused to address the "point", whatever it is, please.
>This is the point. You will now demonstrate it by NOT ADDRESSING THE POINT.
I've observed you, to me and to others, repeatedly stonewall by feigning outrage and indignation over the other person's temerity to question you.
I've also seen you, despite complaining about others supposedly doing it, drag threads completely off-topic. You once did so brazenly in my thread, responding with an utterly flippant "So?" when I called you out on it. I remind you I am in two separate chains in this thread with you and you have completely abandoned them. At the point of abandonment, I have asked no questions but provided my position.
Yet you scarper off, as usual, like a little coward.
Skavau, nobody respects you, you’re a lying sack of shit and talentless gaslighter. You’ve thoroughly earned the reputation you have here.
shareThe people who do nothing on here but follow me around in threads and flame have the maturity of actual children.
One of them is an actual fascist
I’d have more time for ‘an actual fascist’ than a deceitful woke-ass regime bitch like you.
share[deleted]
TVfan is the fascist.
You still haven't explained what this "regime" is. It's ranged from just being the amorphous shadowy figures that make TV shows and moves you don't like to apparently including the Polish government.
Given that you’re a woke activist your accusation of ‘fascist’ is beyond worthless.
Your ideology of wokism is infinitely more fascistic than anything TVfan has said.
>Given that you’re a woke activist your accusation of ‘fascist’ is beyond worthless.
https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/659378fb788f7a7612b2d2ff/TVFan-is-an-anti-american-authoritarian-who-rejects-the-first-amendment-and-who-wants-to-persecute-LGBT-people
Source: https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/65757dacbf40d504a2a62c37/Russian-court-bans-LGBT-movement?reply=65758412bf40d504a2a62c65
TVFan openly supporting censoring the media. Source 2: https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/65d6881f975e425019604ad9/No-evidence-of-covid-vaccines-causing-death?reply=65da70c24e1a13098447a8ad
>Your ideology of wokism is infinitely more fascistic than anything TVfan has said.
How is my "ideology of wokism" "fascistic"?
Wokism is inherently fascistic with its racist, sexist white-male-hating agenda, rewriting of history, cancellation for wrongthink etc.
And so you pointing to TVfan’s exhaustion with Pride degeneracy and child abuse, and mainstream media propaganda is just absurdly hypocritical.
Your fascistic tendencies are far more egregious than his, if he even has any 🤷🏻♂️
>Wokism is inherently fascistic with its racist, sexist white-male-hating agenda, rewriting of history, cancellation for wrongthink etc.
In so much that this is true. This is just asserted and unargued for. For one, I don't hate white men. I'm not sexist, I'm not racist - and I don't support rewriting of history. I generally don't 'cancel' anyone either. Not that I have any such power.
But being banned from a social media platform, as an example of this, is not fascism anymore than someone removing you from a club. Do you reject the right of assembly and free association?
>And so you pointing to TVfan’s exhaustion with Pride degeneracy and child abuse, and mainstream media propaganda is just absurdly hypocritical.
No, I am pointing to his support of oppressive state legislation to persecute LGBT people. He openly supports the universal ban on all "LGBT propaganda" and "LGBT extremism" in public life. Russia arrests people for kissing in public. For wearing pride badges. It bans all LGBT-themed literature, music, tv, film. Russia arrests any and all LGBT activists. That is is big state, that is fascism. These are the things TVfan supports happening in the USA.
He also supports mass media censorship. You didn't comment on that.
TVfan is demonstrably an anti-american hateful fascist who wants to persecute people. As much as I disagree with you and him, I have no desire to sic the state on you. TVfan does want to to this to others.
>Your fascistic tendencies are far more egregious than his, if he even has any 🤷🏻♂️
They are not my tendencies at all. You just threw up a bunch of accusations and lobbed them at me.
In so much that this is true.
For one, I don't hate white men. I'm not sexist, I'm not racist - and I don't support rewriting of history. I generally don't 'cancel' anyone either. Not that I have any such power.
But being banned from a social media platform, as an example of this, is not fascism anymore than someone removing you from a club. Do you reject the right of assembly and free association?
He also supports mass media censorship. You didn't comment on that.
>It is demonstrably true. Your attempt to cast doubt on it reveals you, again, to be a deceitful wokist.
It is not true. You lobbed baseless allegations.
>Calling bullshit on all that. Actions speak louder than words, and whenever anyone calls out woke you leap into action trying to gaslight people into thinking woke isn't a thing with your basic bitch bag of rhetorical tricks. You do this because you’re a wokist and you must protect the cult.
What actions have I shown that shows I hate men or are sexist?
How does arguing against the notion that 'woke' content automatically fails and no-one seems to like it mean I hate men, or are sexist?
Does saying that The Little Mermaid was successful in the box office, and on Disney+ mean I am somehow sexist and racist?
>Classic wokist apologia for banning wrongthink online. Does the cult give you guys a script?
Answer my question: Being banned from a social media platform, as an example of this, is not fascism anymore than someone removing you from a club. Do you reject the right of assembly and free association?
>As for your ‘summary’ of TVfan’s views, you’ve cried wolf so many times you’ve lost all credibility so I don’t believe you.
You don't need to take my summary of them. I have literally given you his stated positions.
https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/65757dacbf40d504a2a62c37/Russian-court-bans-LGBT-movement?reply=65758412bf40d504a2a62c65
https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/65d6881f975e425019604ad9/No-evidence-of-covid-vaccines-causing-death?reply=65da70c24e1a13098447a8ad
He openly supports LGBT censorship and censoring the media.
>If you really wanted to share his views then quote his exact words with an accompanying link.
I've done this. I have done this multiple times. It's literally in this post: https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/65de2c26cc4c6c7af77a3e1d/What-is-woke?reply=65dfba7add6d376bb3499773
>That’s bullshit. He objects to ‘fake news/MSM’ propaganda. Political propaganda should not be infecting supposedly impartial news outlets. Of course, as a wokist you’re very threatened by that. You depend on ideological capture of the media.
"Until fake news/MSM does a 180 and propaganda is banned, nothing will change." This is a quote from him.
Define "propaganda". Should the state be involved in deciding what the media may or may not said?
What if Biden declared Fox News and The Daily Wire as "propaganda" and banned them? Would you call that fascism?
It is not true. You lobbed baseless allegations.
What actions have I shown that shows I hate men or are sexist?
How does arguing against the notion that 'woke' content automatically fails and no-one seems to like it mean I hate men, or are sexist?
Does saying that The Little Mermaid was successful in the box office, and on Disney+ mean I am somehow sexist and racist?
Answer my question: Being banned from a social media platform, as an example of this, is not fascism anymore than someone removing you from a club. Do you reject the right of assembly and free association?
"Until fake news/MSM does a 180 and propaganda is banned, nothing will change." This is a quote from him.
Define "propaganda". Should the state be involved in deciding what the media may or may not said?
What if Biden declared Fox News and The Daily Wire as "propaganda" and banned them? Would you call that fascism?
>No, it is demonstrably true, you decietful gaslighting shitstain.
It is not remotely "demonstrably true". You have provided no evidence for any of your claims. What you continue to insist without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
>All deceitful questions that strawman my actual position - which is that you’re a wokist based on your actions - whenever anyone calls out woke you leap into action trying to gaslight people into thinking woke isn't a thing with your basic bitch bag of rhetorical tricks. You do this because you’re a wokist and you must protect the cult.
This doesn't answer my question: What actions have I shown that shows I hate men or are sexist?
How does arguing against the notion that 'woke' content automatically fails and no-one seems to like it mean I hate men, or are sexist?
Does saying that The Little Mermaid was successful in the box office, and on Disney+ mean I am somehow sexist and racist?
>Fuck off with telling me to define words whose definitions are widely available.
I understand the concept of 'propaganda' - but what positions, as taken by mainstream media do you consider "propaganda" exactly?
>News media that claims to be impartial must be penalised for engaging in partisan propaganda. CNN and MSNBC could still exist, but would have to clearly state that they are regime propaganda outlets.
Penalised in what way? How could they be a outlets for a "regime"? What "regime" would this be?
I see you too hold fascist sympathies based on your desire to kneecap media that
>It would depend on whether they were actually guilty of propagandising.
And how do we objectively determine if a media outlet is "guilty of propagandising"?
>Since Biden is a regime puppet and serial liar it should be presumed that he is merely trying to shut down opposition journalism again.
What "regime" is he a puppet for? You are assuming your own premises. And I see you are basically making exceptions. You don't understand the concept of arguing on common ground. "Things I want to kneecap are justified", "Things my opponents might argue to be kneecapped are bad".
You are closer to fascism than me.
It is not remotely "demonstrably true". You have provided no evidence for any of your claims. What you continue to insist without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
This doesn't answer my question: What actions have I shown that shows I hate men or are sexist? How does arguing against the notion that 'woke' content automatically fails and no-one seems to like it mean I hate men, or are sexist? Does saying that The Little Mermaid was successful in the box office, and on Disney+ mean I am somehow sexist and racist?
I understand the concept of 'propaganda' - but what positions, as taken by mainstream media do you consider "propaganda" exactly?
Penalised in what way? How could they be a outlets for a "regime"? What "regime" would this be?
I see you too hold fascist sympathies based on your desire to kneecap media that
And how do we objectively determine if a media outlet is "guilty of propagandising"?
What "regime" is he a puppet for? You are assuming your own premises. And I see you are basically making exceptions. You don't understand the concept of arguing on common ground.
"Things I want to kneecap are justified", "Things my opponents might argue to be kneecapped are bad".
You are closer to fascism than me.
>Yes it is demonstrably true, you lying shitstain. I no more need to run around providing ‘evidence’ of the existence of woke than I do retrieving evidence that the sky is blue.
I never questioned the existence of woke. This is you strawmanning me - you hypocritical fucktard.
It is not remotely "demonstrably true". You have provided no evidence for any of your claims. What you continue to insist without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
>All deceitful questions that strawman my actual position - which is that you’re a wokist based on your actions - whenever anyone calls out woke you leap into action trying to gaslight people into thinking woke isn't a thing with your basic bitch bag of rhetorical tricks. You do this because you’re a wokist and you must protect the cult.
I 'defend' modern TV and film. That doesn't at all demonstrate any other allegations that are rooted in your bigotry about how you think 'woke' people are supposed to think. What actions have I shown that shows I hate men or are sexist?
How does arguing against the notion that 'woke' content automatically fails and no-one seems to like it mean I hate men, or are sexist?
Does saying that The Little Mermaid was successful in the box office, and on Disney+ mean I am somehow sexist and racist?
>It’s relentless, but one example would be the ‘fine people’ hoax. A flat out deception to create hatred of the regime’s political opponent - Trump.
What about all the factchecks done for the many Fox News and Daily Wire misinformation excerpts? Should they be required to label themselves as far-right? Do you really not understand the danger of empowering the government to sanction media based on their interpretation of what is propaganda?
>Fines, for example.
This is what authoritarian states like Russia do. You admiring them?
>The regime that propagates woke messaging, controls the mainstream media, ensures mass immigration, starts and enflames foreign wars and seeks to centralise power.
And what "regime" would this be? You haven't named an organisation. It's a nefarious reference to a secretive organisation that you can't even come up with a name for.
How do they "ensure" mass immigration? How did they enflame foreign wars? How do they seek to centralise power? Seems to me empowering the state to fine 'propagandist' media is pretty centralised.
>Read your stupid fucking replies before posting FFS. If you actually took a moment to read and think you wouldn’t keep making such a tit of yourself all over this site.
I genuinely believe you are fascist-adjacent now.
>By measuring its messaging against the truth, obviously. Stupid question.
Factcheckers do this all the time, but you all reject them out of hand and apparently never ever read any of their claims. Trump routinely lies. Should he be fined?
Should individuals who lie online also be fined?
>The same regime you’re a bitch for, and which I described above.
No, which you alluded to and gave no evidence for its existence. Just an invisible scaryman. Genuinely on the level of Illuminati.
>Yeah you’re in no position to talk about ‘arguing on common ground’, you’re a decietful regime bitch with nothing but a bag of basic-bitch rhetorical tricks, and a lying sack of shit, remember?
I know of no such thing, and you are literally just copying and pasting your own rhetoric. Does that make you a bot?
>It comes as no surprise that you hold these positions. Finally, the mask slips.
They aren't my position. They are your positions. I have no desire to censor the media. You do.
>Bullshit, you’re a woke fascist and I’m not, at all. I despise fascistic fucks like you. Don’t try and slime me with your stink.
How am I a fascist? Can you even give me the definition of what you think fascism is?
---
I also note you ignored TVfans desire to persecute LGBT people, as laid out plainly by him.
You don't need to take my summary of them. I have literally given you his stated positions.
https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/65757dacbf40d504a2a62c37/Russian-court-bans-LGBT-movement?reply=65758412bf40d504a2a62c65
https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/65d6881f975e425019604ad9/No-evidence-of-covid-vaccines-causing-death?reply=65da70c24e1a13098447a8ad
He openly supports LGBT censorship and censoring the media.
Christ you’re dull - I’ve generously given you my time to correct your perspective and bring you back to reality, but reading your first few sentences it’s clear you’re so allergic to the truth that nothing goes in, it’s just constant sophistry and mindless defensive screeching.
You’re such a pathological liar that you can’t be saved.
But I want to be fair, so here’s what we’ll do. If anyone out there thinks that Skavau has a remotely valid point, or that I haven't adequately addressed his position then quote the relevant passage(s) and explain why, and I’ll address it.
This offer naturally doesn’t extend to you, Skavau, and any reply to me from you, regardless of the text, will be read as an apology for being a lying sack of shit and wasting everyone’s time and a grovelling admission that you’re wrong.
Let’s hope someone out there can find something remotely valid in your drivel 🤞🏻
None of this addressed any of what I said, so I'll just copy and paste myself.
>Yes it is demonstrably true, you lying shitstain. I no more need to run around providing ‘evidence’ of the existence of woke than I do retrieving evidence that the sky is blue.
I never questioned the existence of woke. This is you strawmanning me - you hypocritical fucktard.
It is not remotely "demonstrably true". You have provided no evidence for any of your claims. What you continue to insist without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
>All deceitful questions that strawman my actual position - which is that you’re a wokist based on your actions - whenever anyone calls out woke you leap into action trying to gaslight people into thinking woke isn't a thing with your basic bitch bag of rhetorical tricks. You do this because you’re a wokist and you must protect the cult.
I 'defend' modern TV and film. That doesn't at all demonstrate any other allegations that are rooted in your bigotry about how you think 'woke' people are supposed to think. What actions have I shown that shows I hate men or are sexist?
How does arguing against the notion that 'woke' content automatically fails and no-one seems to like it mean I hate men, or are sexist?
Does saying that The Little Mermaid was successful in the box office, and on Disney+ mean I am somehow sexist and racist?
>It’s relentless, but one example would be the ‘fine people’ hoax. A flat out deception to create hatred of the regime’s political opponent - Trump.
What about all the factchecks done for the many Fox News and Daily Wire misinformation excerpts? Should they be required to label themselves as far-right? Do you really not understand the danger of empowering the government to sanction media based on their interpretation of what is propaganda?
>Fines, for example.
This is what authoritarian states like Russia do. You admiring them?
>The regime that propagates woke messaging, controls the mainstream media, ensures mass immigration, starts and enflames foreign wars and seeks to centralise power.
And what "regime" would this be? You haven't named an organisation. It's a nefarious reference to a secretive organisation that you can't even come up with a name for.
How do they "ensure" mass immigration? How did they enflame foreign wars? How do they seek to centralise power? Seems to me empowering the state to fine 'propagandist' media is pretty centralised.
>Read your stupid fucking replies before posting FFS. If you actually took a moment to read and think you wouldn’t keep making such a tit of yourself all over this site.
I genuinely believe you are fascist-adjacent now.
>By measuring its messaging against the truth, obviously. Stupid question.
Factcheckers do this all the time, but you all reject them out of hand and apparently never ever read any of their claims. Trump routinely lies. Should he be fined?
Should individuals who lie online also be fined?
>The same regime you’re a bitch for, and which I described above.
No, which you alluded to and gave no evidence for its existence. Just an invisible scaryman. Genuinely on the level of Illuminati.
>Yeah you’re in no position to talk about ‘arguing on common ground’, you’re a decietful regime bitch with nothing but a bag of basic-bitch rhetorical tricks, and a lying sack of shit, remember?
I know of no such thing, and you are literally just copying and pasting your own rhetoric. Does that make you a bot?
>It comes as no surprise that you hold these positions. Finally, the mask slips.
They aren't my position. They are your positions. I have no desire to censor the media. You do.
>Bullshit, you’re a woke fascist and I’m not, at all. I despise fascistic fucks like you. Don’t try and slime me with your stink.
How am I a fascist? Can you even give me the definition of what you think fascism is?
---
I also note you ignored TVfans desire to persecute LGBT people, as laid out plainly by him.
You don't need to take my summary of them. I have literally given you his stated positions.
https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/65757dacbf40d504a2a62c37/Russian-court-bans-LGBT-movement?reply=65758412bf40d504a2a62c65
https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/65d6881f975e425019604ad9/No-evidence-of-covid-vaccines-causing-death?reply=65da70c24e1a13098447a8ad
He openly supports LGBT censorship and censoring the media.
Apology accepted.
Now let’s see if someone out there can find anything remotely valid in your drivel…
Also, you’re often described as a bot. If it’s true that you’re a bot, flat out regurgitate your last post. Go…
None of this addressed any of what I said, so I'll just copy and paste myself.
>Yes it is demonstrably true, you lying shitstain. I no more need to run around providing ‘evidence’ of the existence of woke than I do retrieving evidence that the sky is blue.
I never questioned the existence of woke. This is you strawmanning me - you hypocritical fucktard.
It is not remotely "demonstrably true". You have provided no evidence for any of your claims. What you continue to insist without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
>All deceitful questions that strawman my actual position - which is that you’re a wokist based on your actions - whenever anyone calls out woke you leap into action trying to gaslight people into thinking woke isn't a thing with your basic bitch bag of rhetorical tricks. You do this because you’re a wokist and you must protect the cult.
I 'defend' modern TV and film. That doesn't at all demonstrate any other allegations that are rooted in your bigotry about how you think 'woke' people are supposed to think. What actions have I shown that shows I hate men or are sexist?
How does arguing against the notion that 'woke' content automatically fails and no-one seems to like it mean I hate men, or are sexist?
Does saying that The Little Mermaid was successful in the box office, and on Disney+ mean I am somehow sexist and racist?
>It’s relentless, but one example would be the ‘fine people’ hoax. A flat out deception to create hatred of the regime’s political opponent - Trump.
What about all the factchecks done for the many Fox News and Daily Wire misinformation excerpts? Should they be required to label themselves as far-right? Do you really not understand the danger of empowering the government to sanction media based on their interpretation of what is propaganda?
>Fines, for example.
This is what authoritarian states like Russia do. You admiring them?
>The regime that propagates woke messaging, controls the mainstream media, ensures mass immigration, starts and enflames foreign wars and seeks to centralise power.
And what "regime" would this be? You haven't named an organisation. It's a nefarious reference to a secretive organisation that you can't even come up with a name for.
How do they "ensure" mass immigration? How did they enflame foreign wars? How do they seek to centralise power? Seems to me empowering the state to fine 'propagandist' media is pretty centralised.
>Read your stupid fucking replies before posting FFS. If you actually took a moment to read and think you wouldn’t keep making such a tit of yourself all over this site.
I genuinely believe you are fascist-adjacent now.
>By measuring its messaging against the truth, obviously. Stupid question.
Factcheckers do this all the time, but you all reject them out of hand and apparently never ever read any of their claims. Trump routinely lies. Should he be fined?
Should individuals who lie online also be fined?
>The same regime you’re a bitch for, and which I described above.
No, which you alluded to and gave no evidence for its existence. Just an invisible scaryman. Genuinely on the level of Illuminati.
>Yeah you’re in no position to talk about ‘arguing on common ground’, you’re a decietful regime bitch with nothing but a bag of basic-bitch rhetorical tricks, and a lying sack of shit, remember?
I know of no such thing, and you are literally just copying and pasting your own rhetoric. Does that make you a bot?
>It comes as no surprise that you hold these positions. Finally, the mask slips.
They aren't my position. They are your positions. I have no desire to censor the media. You do.
>Bullshit, you’re a woke fascist and I’m not, at all. I despise fascistic fucks like you. Don’t try and slime me with your stink.
How am I a fascist? Can you even give me the definition of what you think fascism is?
---
I also note you ignored TVfans desire to persecute LGBT people, as laid out plainly by him.
You don't need to take my summary of them. I have literally given you his stated positions.
https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/65757dacbf40d504a2a62c37/Russian-court-bans-LGBT-movement?reply=65758412bf40d504a2a62c65
https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/65d6881f975e425019604ad9/No-evidence-of-covid-vaccines-causing-death?reply=65da70c24e1a13098447a8ad
He openly supports LGBT censorship and censoring the media.
Yep, thought so.
shareMore copying and pasting of yourself.
shareSays the clown who literally just copy-pasted a fucking essay 👆🤣
shareYes. I copy and paste when people don't answer me.
You also copy and paste.
Why is that okay for you, and not for me?
You don’t seem to understand. Nobody has any obligation to waste their time answering your insincere Hatchling questions.
You’re not worth anything, you’ve already been outed as a regime lackey with a basic bitch bag of rhetorical tricks.
It’s only because of my immense patience and generosity that I’ve taken some time to school you on reality.
You’re a wokist and a lying sack of shit, and that means you’ve forfeited any respect or right to fair treatment. Do you understand?
>You don’t seem to understand. Nobody has any obligation to waste their time answering your insincere Hatchling questions.
No, but if you keep replying to me and attacking me - I will respond. It's that simple.
>You’re not worth anything, you’ve already been outed as a regime lackey with a basic bitch bag of rhetorical tricks.
You asserting this doesn't make it true. Nor have you explained what "regime" is supposed to mean is.
>It’s only because of my immense patience and generosity that I’ve taken some time to school you on reality.
You are one of the rudest, nastiest pieces of shit that dwells on here.
>You’re a wokist and a lying sack of shit, and that means you’ve forfeited any respect or right to fair treatment . Do you understand?
What have I lied about? How am I a wokist?
Keep making allegations and I'll keep responding.
And are you implying that you think there are no bad tactics, only bad targets?
No, but if you keep replying to me and attacking me - I will respond. It's that simple.
You asserting this doesn't make it true.
Nor have you explained what "regime" is supposed to mean is.
You are one of the rudest, nastiest pieces of shit that dwells on here.
What have I lied about? How am I a wokist?
Keep making allegations and I'll keep responding.
And are you implying that you think there are no bad tactics, only bad targets?
>Attacking? I just answered your question, you ungrateful little turd.
All you do here now is throw abuse at me under the guise of "helping me". I know you're a manipulative sack of horseshit.
>Yes, it’s true whether anyone asserts it or not. Your endless lying has deprived you of the ability to see reality. That is the price of your deceit.
I repeat: You asserting this does not make it true.
>Projection.
"No u"
>Hatchling questions.
Asking people to elaborate on accusations is "hatchling questions"? Should people never ask for allegations against them to be explained or demonstrated?
>No.
If so, then is it wrong for people to be accused of being pedophiles on no evidence?
I also note you ignored TVfans desire to persecute LGBT people, as laid out plainly by him.
You don't need to take my summary of them. I have literally given you his stated positions.
https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/65757dacbf40d504a2a62c37/Russian-court-bans-LGBT-movement?reply=65758412bf40d504a2a62c65
https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/65d6881f975e425019604ad9/No-evidence-of-covid-vaccines-causing-death?reply=65da70c24e1a13098447a8ad
He openly supports LGBT censorship and censoring the media.
I respect Skavau and there are others who do too.
shareOnly by soyboys and betas.
shareNo you don’t. Deceitful woke gaslighters might find him a useful ally but even they know he’s full of shit.
Skavau, leap to your bitch’s defence with another one of your trademark bullshit questions. Go…
Are you now telling him what he thinks?
shareBrandNewPoster was defending the same AI bot that defends pedos.
shareNormal person: The sky is blue
Skavau-bot: Source? Source!?
🤣🤣
Show me a claim that you or someone else made that - that I've disputed or asked for evidence of, is comparable to something as self-evident as the sky being blue.
share👆 Perfect example 🤣
shareAsking you to back up your claim is a "perfect example"? I repeat what I've said before. Imagine being so conceited that you think your assertions about reality are so true that they simply cannot be questioned.
shareI welcome questions, but you forfeited your right to answers, or respect, when you revealed yourself to be a regime bitch playing The Hatchling.
shareStill waiting on what this "regime" is supposed to be.
And no, you clearly do not welcome any scrutiny of any kind.
I welcome questions, but you forfeited your right to answers, or respect, when you revealed yourself to be a regime bitch playing The Hatchling.
shareYou're doing the exact same thing you complain about me doing. Just copy and pasting yourself.
shareHis point is clear and he is telling the truth.
You are lying. YOu are supporting, I call it, The Narrative or The Agenda, depending on context.
What "truth" is he telling?
>You are lying. YOu are supporting, I call it, The Narrative or The Agenda, depending on context.
How am I lying?
What "agenda" am I supporting?
Clearly I was referring to his point.
Asking me that question, was not a real question designed to advance the conversation,
but a rhetorical device to STOP the coversation.
Your goal is not to find the TRuth, but to bury it, under nonsense and games.
Right. So if you are concurring with him, surely you'll have some examples of my lies and the "agenda" I support?
What "truth" am I trying to bury?
The bit, where you asked my what "truth" he was referring to?
That was a good example.
And, the way you ignored my point, and asked a stupid "question" instead, AND the way that even when it was brought to your attention, you still don't address it but just asking another "pretend question"?
Yep. Fine example.
Now, you will continue to NOT address the point.
We are calling you onn your shit in real time. Your game is completely blown. This bit where you keep stonewalling?
That is not you being clever. That is just you taking advantage of the fact that there is no controlling authority to make you stop being a complete asshole.
I would pity Skavau if he wasn’t such a deceitful prick.
The sad creature thinks his ruse will work forever. When it fails and he gets called out he doesn’t reflect on himself, or even adapt, he just doubles down.
The definition of insanity is repeating the same behaviour and expecting a different outcome.
Skavau is a sad, insane creature trapped inside a huge ego. What keeps him so pathologically stupid is the belief that he’s intelligent.
What keeps him so deluded is the belief that he’s objective.
His only value is to provide a disturbing insight into the woke brain.
Agreed.
And it seems like it would be SO EASY, to NOT do that.
How hard is it to just NOT be a dick?
Not sure why I should take lectures on "not being a dick" from someone who continually refuses to elaborate on how I am "being a dick", and for someone who thinks it's appropriate to tell people to kill themselves.
You are a hypocritical piece of shit
So, put me on ignore. Problem solved. Dick.
shareAs a rule, I put no-one on ignore because I can't then see them scrutinising me.
And why don't you put me on ignore?
Sounds like you aren't getting anything of value from interacting with me, so why do you do it?
shareI reply to anyone who replies to me.
The same question back at you.
I havev an irrational belief in the rationality of humans.
I cannot believe that people like you, are really as you present.
Deep down I am convinced that if I grill you hard enough, that somewhere down under all the evil programming, there is a real person with a real soul.
And it's not just you, I do this with most liberals.
So rooted in condescension and arrogance. What "evil programming" do I have?
Remember that you are amongst my most despised people on here. You literally told me to kill myself. You have no moral right to accuse anyone of not having a "soul".
Why would I take you seriously on anything?
Because you know that I am right and that you are full of shit.
shareI know of no such thing. You are not me. You do not get to decide what I think. This is just yet another way how you are an unpleasant, hateful sack of shit. Right about what?
What "evil programming" do I have?
Your programing to be a political troll boi.
shareAnd who "programmed" this? How am I a "political troll boi" (god you sound like a 13 year old kid when you phrase it like that)
shareWow. Talk about an irrelevant question.
I don't care how you got there. YOu are going to pretend to not believe it.
So asking details, is utterly retarded of you.
I'll ask whatever I like. You are not me. You get no say over what it is I think. I have not been "programmed" by anyone.
You behave like a domestic abuser in arguments, hurling insults and attacks when convenient and then play the manipulator and pretend to be their friend. Just another way that you are a repulsive piece of shit.
If you think I lie about everything, as you clearly do, why do you even bother engaging with me at all?
I think you are a vile scumbag. Almost nothing could change my opinion of you at this point.
I didn't say you couldn't ask,
I just pointed out how it was a retarded question.
Once again, instead of addressing what I said, you spouted shit.
Okay. Since you said nothing new I'll just repeat myself:
You are not me. You get no say over what it is I think. I have not been "programmed" by anyone.
You behave like a domestic abuser in arguments, hurling insults and attacks when convenient and then play the manipulator and pretend to be their friend. Just another way that you are a repulsive piece of shit.
If you think I lie about everything, as you clearly do, why do you even bother engaging with me at all?
I think you are a vile scumbag. Almost nothing could change my opinion of you at this point.
>Once again, instead of addressing what I said, you spouted shit.
There's nothing to "address". You threw accusations at me and said I lie. What am I supposed to say to that?
What "ruse" are you referring to?
What have you "called me out" for? I've directly responded to claims you've made and you've still, when I do that, just accuse me of "hiding" or "denying the truth" without any substantiation.
All of the rest of these claims are just baseless claims. You know absolutely nothing about me.
Your ruse is your relentless deployment of basic bitch rhetorical tricks like strawmanning and playing The Hatchling, remember?
You’re a woke twat who’s shit at gaslighting, remember?
I know, nor "remember" no such thing. I am not bound to conclude and concur with your assessments.
>Your ruse is your relentless deployment of basic bitch rhetorical tricks like strawmanning and playing The Hatchling, remember?
I do not do this. You haven't shown a single strawman by me, and I have no idea what "The Hatchling" is supposed to be.
I directed you to examples of your strawmanning and you made endless excuses to not look at them, remember?
Here’s a description of The Hatchling, it’ll do you good to be made aware of the crap sophistry that you instinctually deploy : https://youtu.be/nxQqaG4gl9A?si=dYQ-pQcgtb11G_vy
>I directed you to examples of your strawmanning and you made endless excuses to not look at them, remember?
The only direct "example" you've given was where I noted the Little Mermaid commercial success to you.
Which wasn't a strawman. You just didn't like me interrupting your conversation.
>Here’s a description of The Hatchling, it’ll do you good to be made aware of the crap sophistry that you instinctually deploy : https://youtu.be/nxQqaG4gl9A?si=dYQ-pQcgtb11G_vy
If people are sloppy, and vague with terms - that's on them. If woke is something that you can't objectively explain, then maybe stop using it. Contrary to some on the contemporary left, I do think 'woke' exists - but most people hold different views about the *extent* of woke, and what it applies to. Including right-wingers and reactionaries within this thread. That's the problem.
But I'd like to know what other terms you think I have quibbled about, and objected to.
The only direct "example" you've given was where I noted the Little Mermaid commercial success to you.
Which wasn't a strawman. You just didn't like me interrupting your conversation.
If people are sloppy, and vague with terms - that's on them. If woke is something that you can't objectively explain, then maybe stop using it. Contrary to some on the contemporary left, I do think 'woke' exists - but most people hold different views about the *extent* of woke, and what it applies to. Including right-wingers and reactionaries within this thread. That's the problem.
But I'd like to know what other terms you think I have quibbled about, and objected to.
>No, I directed you to multiple examples of your strawmanning here: https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/65de2c26cc4c6c7af77a3e1d/What-is-woke?reply=65dfb76bdd6d376bb3499712
That's not a specific example. You have provided no direct examples because you're unable to.
>Then, you made a series of pathetic excuses to avoid reading them because you knew you’d find multiple examples of your strawmanning which would inconvenience your lame pretence that you’re anything other than a gaslighting regime bitch. It was really embarrassing for you, remember?
Do you expect me to read my entire posting history?
In addition, I know no such thing. I am not bound by your ridiculous claims about me. I think you're full of shit, remember?
>What does any of this twaddle have to do with you playing The Hatchling?
You complain about me asking people to be precise and provide clear definitions and call it "being a hatchling". As if I should ignore sloppy, evasive and vague language.
That's not a specific example. You have provided no direct examples because you're unable to.
Do you expect me to read my entire posting history?
In addition, I know no such thing. I am not bound by your ridiculous claims about me. I think you're full of shit, remember?
You complain about me asking people to be precise and provide clear definitions and call it "being a hatchling". As if I should ignore sloppy, evasive and vague language.
[deleted]
>The bit, where you asked my what "truth" he was referring to?
This is getting vaguer and vaguer now. People allude to things I apparently think without expanding on what they are all the time. There's nothing to challenge there. I could just say that you "deny" the truth. It's a worthless non-claim.
>And, the way you ignored my point, and asked a stupid "question" instead, AND the way that even when it was brought to your attention, you still don't address it but just asking another "pretend question"?
What "point" did I gnore?
>Now, you will continue to NOT address the point.
What "point"?
>We are calling you onn your shit in real time. Your game is completely blown. This bit where you keep stonewalling?
I do not stonewall. You claiming I stonewall does not mean that I do.
>That is not you being clever. That is just you taking advantage of the fact that there is no controlling authority to make you stop being a complete asshole.
So much for you valuing free speech.
Obviously, that is not true. There are other posters in this thread and on this site who clearly agree with Skavau's views.
shareThey might be fellow leftards, but even they know that Skavau is a troll boi.
Hell, Skavau knows it too.
I know of no such thing. Do not presume to tell me what I do, and do not think.
share…says the queen of strawmanning 🤣
shareGive me some examples of a strawman from me please.
shareTake a look at your posting history, and if you’re still confused because strawmanning has become second nature to you then look for posts when I’ve pointed out your strawmanning and smacked you down for asking questions based on a premise you pulled out of your ass and attributed to me. Off you go…
shareNo. You made the claim. You back it up.
You have merely claimed I've "strawmanned" at points, but never ever backed up how. And when you did I responded to those claims. I usually ask questions for clarification, to try to understand precisely the other person's position.
What premise did I attribute to you? You referring to that other woke thread made by a user who claimed they all fail, which you spoke in support of, but then when pressed - denied doing so?
No, you asked for examples, I told you where to find them. I’m not running around on your behalf you worthless sack of shit 🤣
shareGuess what? I'm going to copy and paste my last reply.
I'm also not doing shit. I know what I type and reject your baseless partisan accusations. But if you make the claim, I will ask you for evidence. So here goes my copy and paste:
No. You made the claim. You back it up.
You have merely claimed I've "strawmanned" at points, but never ever backed up how. And when you did I responded to those claims. I usually ask questions for clarification, to try to understand precisely the other person's position.
What premise did I attribute to you? You referring to that other woke thread made by a user who claimed they all fail, which you spoke in support of, but then when pressed - denied doing so?
No, you asked for examples, I told you where to find them. I’m not running around on your behalf you worthless sack of shit 🤣
shareAnd I see no reason to agree with your claims about me. It's rooted in your partisan quackery.
You've also made it your sole goal, you only goal to follow me around on here.
All of your posts in the last 24 hours - hell, probably longer have been about me, either to me, or to someone else.
I told you where to find the examples you asked for and you’re making excuses to not go find them 🤷🏻♂️
If you’re not going to go find them then why did you ask for them in the first place, ya silly tit?
I asked you to provide specific posts where I had done it. Provide them or not, but as I said: I see no reason to agree with your claims about me. It's rooted in your partisan quackery.
shareYou asked for examples, I told you where to find them. I’m not running around on your behalf you worthless sack of shit 🤣
shareYour examples were the equivalent of a child going "sos your face". Just genuinely "everything you say" territory level of argument.
I see no reason to agree with your claims about me. It's rooted in your partisan quackery.
You asked for examples, I told you where to find them. I’m not running around on your behalf you worthless sack of shit 🤣
shareYou're copy and pasting yourself.
Does that make you a bot?
I told you where to find the examples you asked for and you’re making excuses to not go find them 🤷🏻♂️
If you’re not going to go find them then why did you ask for them in the first place, ya silly tit?
Fine, I'll just copy and paste myself then.
Your examples were the equivalent of a child going "sos your face". Just genuinely "everything you say" territory level of argument.
I see no reason to agree with your claims about me. It's rooted in your partisan quackery.
Why the hell are you copy-pasting your old responses when you could be fetching the examples that you asked for?
Because, if you haven't noticed - I do not take those allegations seriously. I think you're full of shit. I have said nothing that is close to what you've claimed. I have no reason to regard you as anything close to a reliable or unbiased narrator.
I think genuinely think you have the maturity of a child. You have literally spent several days now following me around and commenting about me.
You are obsessed with me to an unhealthy level.
This is why everyone thinks you’re a fucking clown.
You ask for evidence then when you’re offered it you reject and run away from it because it doesn’t fit your deranged beliefs.
You’re not objective, you’re a partisan prick, a woke regime bitch playing The Hatchling.
>This is why everyone thinks you’re a fucking clown.
By "everyone" you mean all of the half-dozen far-right reactionary friends of yours that camp in the politics forum?
>You ask for evidence then when you’re offered it you reject and run away from it because it doesn’t fit your deranged beliefs.
Just going "your profile lol" isn't evidence. It's the typical troll tactic of "your face". You haven't pointed to anything specifically, or referenced anything specifically because you are incapable of doing so. Do you really think anyone is going to take such a frivolous claim seriously and spend hours pouring over their old comments just to see if they somehow strawmanned someone?
>You’re not objective, you’re a partisan prick, a woke regime bitch playing The Hatchling.
And what is this "woke regime"? Is it Hollywood, or is it the Polish government?
If you’re not going to go find the examples then why did you ask for them in the first place, ya silly tit?
shareYou made claims I was strawmanning. As I always do, I ask for evidence. Your claim that my entire profile is such is simply rooted in your prejudice.
Do you think your argument at all checks out in a more serious context? If someone throws an allegation against someone and is then sued for libel, would the court accept them just saying "everything they've written" as somehow evidence that it wasn't libel?
Pathetic excuse.
This is why everyone thinks you’re a fucking clown.
You ask for evidence then when you’re offered it you reject and run away from it because it doesn’t fit your deranged beliefs.
You’re not objective, you’re a partisan prick, a woke regime bitch playing The Hatchling.
Now, make more pathetic excuses for not fetching the evidence that you asked for and I directed you to. Go…
You made claims I was strawmanning. As I always do, I ask for evidence. Your claim that my entire profile is such is simply rooted in your prejudice.
Do you think your argument at all checks out in a more serious context? If someone throws an allegation against someone and is then sued for libel, would the court accept them just saying "everything they've written" as somehow evidence that it wasn't libel?
>You’re not objective, you’re a partisan prick, a woke regime bitch playing The Hatchling.
Still waiting what for what this "woke regime" supposedly is. Is it Hollywood? Is it the Polish government?
There you go, you’re strawmanning again right there in your post. I never said ‘everything they've written’, I said ‘Take a look at your posting history, and if you’re still confused because strawmanning has become second nature to you then look for posts when I’ve pointed out your strawmanning and smacked you down for asking questions based on a premise you pulled out of your ass and attributed to me.’
Are you going to get the evidence you asked for or continue to make bullshit excuses?
>There you go, you’re strawmanning again right there in your post. I never said ‘everything they've written’, I said ‘Take a look at your posting history, and if you’re still confused because strawmanning has become second nature to you then look for posts when I’ve pointed out your strawmanning and smacked you down for asking questions based on a premise you pulled out of your ass and attributed to me.’
Fine. "Everything I've written on here". It wasn't a completely identical analogy. Let me adjust since you seem to need it to be completely identical, or as identical as can be.
Suppose you accuse someone of something, and they sue you for libel. Would it be acceptable to just link to their social media accounts as evidence and demand they find it for themselves? Do you think the court would accept that as good grounds for defamation in that circumstance? You're effectively setting your position to be completely unfalsifiable.
>Are you going to get the evidence you asked for or continue to make bullshit excuses?
What if I read my history (are you expecting me to go through 378 pages of posts?) and conclude differently to you? Why would you be right, and I wrong?
Still a false analogy, liar, I generously helped you to find your strawman examples with ‘if you’re still confused because strawmanning has become second nature to you then look for posts when I’ve pointed out your strawmanning and smacked you down for asking questions based on a premise you pulled out of your ass and attributed to me.’
Strawmanning is strawmanning, if you ‘disagree’ that the examples are strawmanning it just means you’re lying again.
How is it a "false analogy"? Answer the question: Fine. "Everything I've written on here". It wasn't a completely identical analogy. Let me adjust since you seem to need it to be completely identical, or as identical as can be.
Suppose you accuse someone of something, and they sue you for libel. Would it be acceptable to just link to their social media accounts as evidence and demand they find it for themselves? Do you think the court would accept that as good grounds for defamation in that circumstance? You're effectively setting your position to be completely unfalsifiable.
>Strawmanning is strawmanning, if you ‘disagree’ that the examples are strawmanning it just means you’re lying again.
So this is unfalsifiable. If I disagree with you on anything, you just accuse me of lying.
Still a false analogy, liar, I generously helped you to find your strawman examples with ‘if you’re still confused because strawmanning has become second nature to you then look for posts when I’ve pointed out your strawmanning and smacked you down for asking questions based on a premise you pulled out of your ass and attributed to me.’
Of course it’s falsifiable. Strawmanning is strawmanning, if you ‘disagree’ that the examples are strawmanning it just means you’re lying again.
You wokists are so pathologically dishonest you struggle to even conceive of objective reality and truth.
Now, make a load more excuses to avoid looking at the examples you asked for. Go…
>Still a false analogy, liar, I generously helped you to find your strawman examples with ‘if you’re still confused because strawmanning has become second nature to you then look for posts when I’ve pointed out your strawmanning and smacked you down for asking questions based on a premise you pulled out of your ass and attributed to me.’
I've made many posts on here. You want me to go through my history (there is no search on moviechat) and filter out every discussion with you? This is absurd.
>Of course it’s falsifiable. Strawmanning is strawmanning, if you ‘disagree’ that the examples are strawmanning it just means you’re lying again.
No, it's not. If you presented me with a supposed strawman and I said "That's not a strawman" - you'd just assume I am lying. How is someone supposed to prove they are not lying?
What. A. Prick 🤦🏻♂️
shareYep, like clockwork.
Amusing how he/she/it just keeps going even after countless people have already called out his/her/its strawman-questions shtick.
Just a cringe moron all round.
>There’s nothing genuine about your questions, and that quickly becomes apparent to anyone who answers them… which they do in good faith until it becomes apparent that you’re not the bastion of Socratic interrogation that you pretend to be, but rather a regime bitch on a gaslighting mission.
I haven't really asked many questions in this thread. I've invited Sandy to expand on their position and made a point that detracters of 'woke' hold varying positions on what 'woke', or what examples of 'woke' is - making it tedious to address their claims as you have to often assume the boundaries for what they regard as 'woke'.
I also laughed at Corbells comical claims about men not liking lesbians in their content, or his clutching at pearls that Thor isn't depicted as nordic in one of the most commercialised and commodified franchises on the planet.
>It’s fun watching that happen, it’s fun to tip off your latest victim, and it’s fun watching you fume when you get exposed.
Merely making ad hominem against me is no more "exposure" than if I just insulted you across the forum wherever you interacted. You are hostile to be questioned. You don't like anyone disagreeing with you and throw your toys out of the pram when you are. You haven't addressed many of my points in the other threads, most of which weren't any form of question - but direct responses to your claims. You also argued in a duplicitous way. Praising the OP for making an observation about 'woke', but when pointed out that the observation is flawed, roll back and act as if you never concurred with his observation at all and hurl abuse at others for thinking that you did.
Another copy-paste bot response 🤦🏻♂️
Now unleash a flurry of your trademark Hatchling questions. Go…
You also copy and paste your own replies.
Why is that okay for you and not for me? Why am I a bot when I copy and paste the reply because you didn't answer any of it, but you're not when you copy and paste yourself?
It's interesting when a word like this is thrown around frequently but 160 something posts have yet to clarify a precise definition of what it means.
shareIt is interesting. There is certainly something to be learned from looking at that.
BUT, what it NOT to be learned that does not mean that it is not a real thing, nor that the complaints about it, are not valid.
To be fair, many of you who deride wokism also draw the line at different points. I have pointed out successful 'woke' TV shows and films (or shows characterised as such by many) and I am sometimes met in response with "That's not woke", but there would be commenters literally a few lines up complaining about the very examples I gave as being *woke*.
shareSo?
shareSo whenever someone makes a claim about 'woke', you have to inquire about what it is they consider woke to get a handle on what they mean precisely. That's why there's always this discussion about "what is woke"?
shareNOt really. People have a general idea of what people mean by woke, AND the vast majority of the time, when someone makes a claim abotu woke, they are claiming something is woke and generally will state their complaint, thus answering your question in their initial assertion.
To ask at that point, what they mean, is...dumb.
Not really. So take the other thread. People complaining about how 'woke' content always fails.
So I reply with examples of successful shows that were called 'woke', that did not fail. That got lots of viewers.
I am met with "Well those shows aren't woke!"
So at that point I would need to get clarification precisely on where, for that person, 'woke' begins and ends. And it will almost certainly differ with yours.
i doubt that. Probably not significantly.
What is really happening there, is not a real clash of definitions, but a hope on the part of the other posters, that woke films will always fail so that hopefuly soon, the... badness will stop.
The logical fallacy of No True Scotsman is a defense of that hope.
>i doubt that. Probably not significantly.
What of these shows and movies do you consider woke: She-Hulk, LOTR: Rings of Power, The Last of Us, Sex Education, Euphoria, Heartstopper, The Little Mermaid, Barbie, Bridgerton and Ginny & Georgia
>What is really happening there, is not a real clash of definitions, but a hope on the part of the other posters, that woke films will always fail so that hopefuly soon, the... badness will stop.
Some of them say that. Other insist they always fail. And any example to the contrary somehow becomes unwoke.
My analysis was NOT based on them "saying" it, but on them DOING it.
So, your post... was... empty of any meaning.
I meant some people who rail against wokism advance the argument that all woke content naturally fails. This, depending on how narrowly they define 'wokism' - doesn't seem to be true at all.
shareYes. Some woke films make money.
The issue is not confusion on the definition, but them being stuck on the hope of woke failing and a NO TRUE SCOTSMAN logical fallacy.
>Yes. Some woke films make money.
Okay. But you are not the people I'm referring to that claim 'woke' always fails. This clearly isn't true unless you have an especially narrow definition of woke.
I've given you my answer to that, twice now.
Right. And I was contextualising why "what is woke" is asked - because some people make absolute definitive claims, and don't provide examples or elaborate on their position enough.
shareSO, I gave you my answer to that. Would you lkke to respond?
I mean, you asked the question. So, I'm waiting for hte next step of the communication.
What is there to respond to? You said that "Some woke films make money".
I agree. What is there for me to address specifically beyond that?
So, what was your point in asking about it? What does factoid mean in context? How does it advance the discussion?
shareWhat are you wanting to discuss about related to this exactly?
shareYou brought it up. Not me. ...
So, you brought it up for no reason. Just to muddle the issue.
You had nothing to say about it, but you made an issue of it.
Do you understand why everyone hates you?
>You had nothing to say about it, but you made an issue of it.
I wondered if you might have anything to say about it.
>Do you understand why everyone hates you?
By "everyone" you mean the dozen (at best) half dozen reactionaries, borderline fascists on the politics board?
And you hate me because I don't support Trump, and don't consider myself right-wing. It's that simple. I could say anything and you'd still "hate" me.
Personally I think telling someone to kill themselves is much nastier than me arguing in ways you don't like. Another user on here routinely accuses me of being a pedophile. Another user (who has now deleted their account) accused me of being a pedophile and a potential school shooter.
You have anything to say about their conduct?
And you hate me because I don't support Trump, and don't consider myself right-wing.
>- Because you are a shill that incessantly requests for proof of everything instead finding it yourself.
You make absurd claims that there exists no evidence for. There's no evidence online that Obamacare is a front for child trafficking. There's no evidence that Lady Gaga is a Jew. There's no evidence that 2 billion people+ have been injured by the vaccine.
It's just shit you've made up.
>- Because you are constantly moving the goalpost.
And you've been unable to indicate a single example of when I did this.
>- Because you constantly gaslight everyone with logical fallacies.
Examples please. I can name many logical fallacies you've done. You often beg the question, for a start - and engage in circular reasoning.
>- Because you constantly lie to suit your narrative.
What am I lying about?
>- Because you always play coy and play the victim.
Playing the victim is noting the personal abuse I receive on here from crybully fascist fucktards like yourself?
And you just proved and confirmed all my points. LMAO
WokeBot: don't forget to repeat your previous reply. 👇
This is what I mean. Merely me responding to your claims is in itself, to you, somehow evidence that they are right. This is a genuinely childish mentality. "Reply and I'm right" point of view. I'll repeat them again:
>- Because you are a shill that incessantly requests for proof of everything instead finding it yourself.
You make absurd claims that there exists no evidence for. There's no evidence online that Obamacare is a front for child trafficking. There's no evidence that Lady Gaga is a Jew. There's no evidence that 2 billion people+ have been injured by the vaccine.
It's just shit you've made up. You don't understand the concept of unfalsifibility. Disproving a negative.
>- Because you are constantly moving the goalpost.
And you've been unable to indicate a single example of when I did this.
>- Because you constantly gaslight everyone with logical fallacies.
Examples please. I can name many logical fallacies you've done. You often beg the question, for a start - and engage in circular reasoning.
>- Because you constantly lie to suit your narrative.
What am I lying about?
>- Because you always play coy and play the victim.
Playing the victim is noting the personal abuse I receive on here from crybully fascist fucktards like yourself?
So, you brought it up even though it meant nothing to you.
THere was nothing of value in that exchange. You had nothing to say.
I was responding, as normal people do in a coversation, to you, in the expectation that you have something to say.
BUT, you didn't. You were not actually engaged in communication.
You were enaged in .....
anti-communication.
You were here to PREVENT discussion of hte issue.
According to you my action of *responding* to someone is somehow an attempt to *prevent* another topic from happening. What a strange notion you have in your head.
How does me starting a branching topic, making a point adjacent to the thread prevent discussion of anything?
And you did not reply to my points:
>Do you understand why everyone hates you?
By "everyone" you mean the dozen (at best) half dozen reactionaries, borderline fascists on the politics board?
And you hate me because I don't support Trump, and don't consider myself right-wing. It's that simple. I could say anything and you'd still "hate" me.
Personally I think telling someone to kill themselves is much nastier than me arguing in ways you don't like. Another user on here routinely accuses me of being a pedophile. Another user (who has now deleted their account) accused me of being a pedophile and a potential school shooter.
You have anything to say about their conduct?
But, it wasn't another topic. You had nothing to say.
SO you buried the thread and any real discussion, under... shit talk.
This is a very simple and clear answer to your question.
Now you will demonstrate my, indeed THE complaint against you,
by not resonding to my point at all.
You will instead talk some type shit.
Your S.O.P. would be to ask me what APPEARS to be a question, that would clarify or dig into my point, but in actuality, even if I respond forever to your series of questions, it won't actually lead to anything.
Now, do it, as I described.
>SO you buried the thread and any real discussion, under... shit talk.
This is a huge thread. If you want to talk about 'wokeness' you can do it anywhere here. My original point to you was *about* wokeness. Not sure how I am burying a chain about wokeness when I bring up a particular observation about wokeness.
>You will instead talk some type shit.
You mean the fact that you made some allegations against me, and I have every right to address them and probe the levels of your own hypocrisy? I know you are a sad little child who can't take being questioned on anything. It's a common theme across all of your posts. You cry, delay, dither and whine whenever your positions are probed. Nonetheless, you did not reply to my points:
----
>Do you understand why everyone hates you?
By "everyone" you mean the dozen (at best) half dozen reactionaries, borderline fascists on the politics board?
And you hate me because I don't support Trump, and don't consider myself right-wing. It's that simple. I could say anything and you'd still "hate" me.
Personally I think telling someone to kill themselves is much nastier than me arguing in ways you don't like. Another user on here routinely accuses me of being a pedophile. Another user (who has now deleted their account) accused me of being a pedophile and a potential school shooter.
You have anything to say about their conduct?
YOu had NOTHING to say about that "observation".
So, why did you say it?
Not answering anything until you answer my questions:
>Do you understand why everyone hates you?
By "everyone" you mean the dozen (at best) half dozen reactionaries, borderline fascists on the politics board?
And you hate me because I don't support Trump, and don't consider myself right-wing. It's that simple. I could say anything and you'd still "hate" me.
Personally I think telling someone to kill themselves is much nastier than me arguing in ways you don't like. Another user on here routinely accuses me of being a pedophile. Another user (who has now deleted their account) accused me of being a pedophile and a potential school shooter.
You have anything to say about their conduct?
Done.
Not answering anything until you answer my questions:
>Do you understand why everyone hates you?
By "everyone" you mean the dozen (at best) half dozen reactionaries, borderline fascists on the politics board?
And you hate me because I don't support Trump, and don't consider myself right-wing. It's that simple. I could say anything and you'd still "hate" me.
Personally I think telling someone to kill themselves is much nastier than me arguing in ways you don't like. Another user on here routinely accuses me of being a pedophile. Another user (who has now deleted their account) accused me of being a pedophile and a potential school shooter.
You have anything to say about their conduct?
If hot-button words were given a concrete definition, half the country's brains would explode.
shareSomething that's been around much longer than most realize https://youtu.be/o-00OWb560M?si=8Hot2aAC7aI-Hl9a Note the date this aired
shareI always post the definition of woke.
Woke
Umbrella term for individuals who are engrossed by social justice and thinks of themselves as saviors with a moral high ground, but remain willfully ignorant to the irrationality of their claims and the problems they create. These individuals give special treatment to certain minorities in hopes of ending racism and perpetuate mental illnesses as the norm.
"My son's woke kindergarten teacher taught him that he's actually a girl because he played with dolls."
That's pretty good.
share