Tucker Tries Truth in Advertising!
By now we all know what caused the run on SVB was, uh, Wokeness? Anyway, that apparently was too vague for the mouth breathers in Fox News’ demo, so Tucker Carlson et all decided to embroider a little bit:
Lately, this slapdash reasoning has been refined: Republicans are now claiming the bank was not only felled by its emphasis on diversity but also the tens of millions it allegedly donated to Black Lives Matter. “Silicon Valley Bank, brace yourself, spent more than $73 million on donations to BLM and related organizations,” Fox News host Tucker Carlson said Tuesday, citing a report produced by the Claremont Institute, a right-wing think tank. His on-air colleagues Ainsley Earhardt, Jesse Watters, and Maria Bartiromo made similar declarations.
The reality? Silicon Valley Bank has donated zero dollars to Black Lives Matter. That empty figure is even confirmed by a Claremont Institute database that tracks corporate pledges to the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation and its associated or related groups, which is probably why right-wing pundits are instead citing the think tank’s compilation of donations to “organizations and initiatives that advance one or more aspects of BLM’s agenda.” But that ill-defined description could mean any number of things. (It also doesn’t help that, as Popular Information noted, the Claremont Institute has described BLM’s agenda in remarkably broad terms, accusing the movement of conspiring to “undermine capitalism, the nation state, and Western civilization.”)
So got that? The GOP blames SVB’s failure on a BLM donation that never happened and does not exist.
But what is this about Wokeness, you ask? We found an expert to explain it to us:
OK, then!
And what’s the big issue about Black Lives Matter and Fox News?
And I guess that’s a wrap.
Mock Paper Scissors 
‘Woke’ is the right’s shiny new N-word.
That’s why Mandel stumbled so badly.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Exactly. They’re all forgetting Lee Atwater’s “How to sound less racist while being as racist as fuck”
LikeLiked by 3 people
That’s exactly what I THOUGHT “woke” meant!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I was watching this lady blank out with the question. Lots of “uh”, blinking eyes, mouth open. Generally, she went into breakdown mode when asked to define woke. But she had no problem using it in a sentence. Strange.
w3ski
LikeLiked by 3 people
Indeed. She even mentioned she wrote a whole chapter about it and still can’t define it. Coocoo for Coco Puffs strange
LikeLiked by 4 people
No, she’s unwilling to define it, because if she did, she’d be outed as a racist shithead, and she desperately wants to not be defined as such so she can continue to be a pseudo-intellectual ‘contrarian’ which is quite profitable these days.
She’s also the one who proclaimed “Sorry Grandma. but I’m going to keep taking my kids to the park and school. You stay home of you don’t want to die” in response to COVID lockdowns in early 2020.
She has a lot invested in that persona, so acting befuddled on the air was the safest way out of that trap.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Found this earlier today. Seems like a really good definition. “Woke nowadays refers to being aware or well informed in a political or cultural sense, especially regarding issues surrounding marginalized communities – it describes someone who has “woken up” to issues of social injustice”…
LikeLiked by 3 people
That is the real definition of woke, but “anti-woke” people don’t know it or don’t want to use it. They are really in favor of being unaware of, or even promoting, social injustice. I can see why the woman had trouble putting a positive spin on that. But you’d think she would have been prepared for the question.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Oh ffs. Auntie Fa dies years ago. Get over it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As it has been said before: excellent question from the interviewer, Briahna Joy Gray. The simplest most succinct question of our life and times.
The Wikipedia of Ms. Gray: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Briahna_Joy_Gray
LikeLike