Just how susceptible to being “groomed” are kids now days? If they’re so weak minded that they can be turned gay so easily, there was never any hope for them anyway.
I agree. I have found that if you replace “woke” with either “n*r-loving” or “qr-loving,” depending upon context, the considered commentary will make perfect sense. Seriously, every time.
So, that’s a close-enough definition for me, and of course, as already noted, “woke” provides enough plausible deniability in their evil little brains to serve their purposes.
And then we find out that those jerks who are the most loudly bleating about “groomers” are themselves guilty of diddling children.
I know it’s neither logical nor fair to assume that when a conservative accuses some other group of doing something bad, that they’re doing it themselves. So I wish they’d stop doing their best to empirically prove it’s a reliable presumption.
Yes, this exactly. If it appears to be an attempt to show kindness to a marginalized group then it’s “woke.”
“Woke” is Republican-speak for “anything I don’t like.” Which pretty much boils down to “I hate change.”
Poor people and orphans were put to work in workhouses in Victorian Britain. Then things changed. Workhouses are no longer there; poor people and orphans are looked after by more humane organizations.
Gays were in the closet. Until Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), which basically struck down all anti-gay laws.
I could go on, but I won’t. If I had to answer the OP’s question, it would be “‘Woke’ means change that you don’t like.”
I’ll add that a wise man once said, “Change is how you know that time is happening.” MAGATs might not like change, but they will have to deal with it.