It’s interesting wording and assumption from an uberproggie. Let me explain. Based on a close male friend’s review of the anti-male Barbie movie (his best gal forced him to see it), I stated upon Book of Faces I’ve no interest in seeing the anti-male Barbie movie (which means I won’t see it and haven’t seen it) and this uberproggie’s most immediate reply is “Please, enlighten me, what part of the movie do you feel attacked you?” For which I have no reference point because, in context, I won’t see it and haven’t seen it.
She saw the anti-male Barbie movie – of course – and from her photos at the theater she saw the anti-male Barbie movie with what looks like a Care Bear that’s part of Hunter Biden’s entourage. She asserted the woke message isn’t anti-male, the woke message is anti-patriarchy. Knowing myself, semantics is a lousy form of logic, so it’s no surprise to myself I chose instead to mock and not engage. It’s equally productive but at least I get to smile. And it’s a great way to proclaim “You and your words aren’t valuable to me.”
In any case, it’s very typical and telling of woke extremism that all human interaction is reduced to “pleasing to my woke worldview” and “displeasing to my woke worldview.” How can I claim woke extremism holds such an absolute worldview?
She assumed I felt ATTACKED because I’m critical of the anti-male Barbie movie and this is displeasing to her woke worldview. ATTACKED. Over a movie. About a toy doll.
ATTACKED. Over a movie about a toy doll that with crystal clarity I shared I won’t see and haven’t seen.
ATTACKED.
Lighten up, Morrissey.
Leave a Reply