Wokester wackos dismiss 'Gone With the Wind' as 'an epic known for its racism' at Netflix - Blogs 82%

By Monica Showalter93%

7/15/2026, 4:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 39 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Anecdotal, and Hasty Generalization, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 53.3% saturation with 367 hits. Analysis detected 2,052 faulty-reasoning hits from 689 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 73.5% and a BS Rank of 82% (4,023 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 81.60% of the article peer group.

Just how 'woke' has Netflix become? 
Woke to the point of gibberish and inanity. 
They're so woke they make Nikole Hannah Jones of the 1619 Project look temperate and knowledgable. 
Here is Netflix's description for the 1940 Academy Award-winning movie classic, 'Gone With the Wind,' which is the highest-grossing film of all time when adjusted for inflation. 
Holy crap. 
I just checked. 
It's real. 
This is the Netflix summary for Gone With The Wind: pic.twitter.com/WIQts84woi 
- End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) July 15, 2026 
"A 1939 American Civil War epic known for its racism. 
To learn more about Black lives in America, search "Black Lives Matter." 
Which is about as subliterate as such things get. 
It's pretty obvious none of these woke goobers watched the movie. 
It's primarily a passionate bodice-ripping love story. 
Audiences rage at beautiful Scarlett O'Hara, played by Vivien Leigh, for being such a maddeningly capricious scoundrel with such bad judgment in men and other matters that they can't get enough of it. 
We loved the magnificent, dashing, Rhett Butler character, played by Clark Gable. 
Other characters -- Melanie, Ashley, Pork, Prissy, Maybelle Meriwether, Belle Watling, Frank, the Tarletwins, and Mammy were all magnificently memorable characters. 
I saw the movie about 20 times as a kid when it played at a local theatre in San Diego on Saturdays. 
My little gang of tween friends would go see it over and over again for various reasons, some being old movie aficionados, or else history buffs like me, or just to tag along. 
We even brought our black friends with us to watch it, unironically, which still leaves me flabbergasted when I think about it. 
I recently saw one of them some 50 years later -- who told me she thought nothing was amiss. 
It is a movie in a historical setting, which at the time did involve a growingly racist view of society. 
That's just history, people don't have to shield their virgin ears to learn about it. 
Most people can recognize context. 
Set in the antebellum South among the plantation class, it did take place in a racist era, but every movie made before the Civil Rights era could be called the same. 
It depicted the history of pre-, during, and post-Civil War events fairly accurately, given that its author, Margaret Mitchell, had been a journalist herself and based the events of her book on actual recollections from Civil War-era survivors who were some of the last ones living. 
While there were movies from the past that depicted black people in vicious racial stereotypes -- stupid, animalistic, dangerous, as was seen the 1915 Birth of a Nation -- Mitchell's GWTW never did that. 
The black people in the film were depicted in historic roles as enslaved people, but the characters themselves were depicted as individuals, and mostly in a Greek Chorus role, cautioning and sometimes scolding Scarlett to behave herself, but also as individuals strong in adversity and with dignity. 
The one negatively portrayed black character -- and remember, the black people in the movie were depicted as individuals -- Prissy -- was more weak and prevaricating than vicious. 
Meanwhile, Hattie McDaniel put on a performance as Mammy so impressive she received the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress. 
The movie was a success because it was a work of art. 
Black people are not demeaned in this movie, they are portrayed as their lives were during the era, with many varieties of character, but mostly in very positive lights 
That Netflix would smear this historic film with the grotesque description it did, and then tell viewers to go to the fraud-filled Black Lives Matter website, is beyond disgusting. 
It's as bad as their foisting of ' Cuties ' on us, glorifying child porn, back in 2020. 
They've been involved in a lot of woke controversies, so we know there's a cultural problem over there. 
There should be a public stink about this for the woke, ignorant movie description courtesy of the morons at Netflix. 
It can't come soon enough. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.2%Monica Showalter: 20.5%American Thinker: 10.6%Confirmation Bias10.2%This article: 3.9%Monica Showalter: 0.8%American Thinker: 0.7%Anchoring Bias3.9%This article: 16.7%Monica Showalter: 6.3%American Thinker: 3.7%Availability Heuristic16.7%This article: 2.9%Monica Showalter: 1.9%American Thinker: 1.6%Representativeness Heuristic2.9%This article: 2.6%Monica Showalter: 1.1%American Thinker: 1.3%Hindsight Bias2.6%This article: 0.7%Monica Showalter: 3.6%American Thinker: 2.7%Overconfidence Bias0.7%This article: 4.1%Monica Showalter: 7.1%American Thinker: 7.1%Framing Effect4.1%This article: 0.0%Monica Showalter: 0.9%American Thinker: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Monica Showalter: 0.4%American Thinker: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 3.2%Monica Showalter: 0.5%American Thinker: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect3.2%This article: 0.7%Monica Showalter: 1.1%American Thinker: 1.6%Optimism Bias0.7%This article: 0.7%Monica Showalter: 2.6%American Thinker: 2.6%Pessimism Bias0.7%This article: 21.3%Monica Showalter: 21.1%American Thinker: 13.0%Negativity Bias21.3%This article: 3.2%Monica Showalter: 1.6%American Thinker: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias3.2%This article: 5.8%Monica Showalter: 4.8%American Thinker: 2.9%Fundamental Attribution Error5.8%This article: 0.0%Monica Showalter: 0.2%American Thinker: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.8%Monica Showalter: 4.3%American Thinker: 3.9%In-Group Bias4.8%This article: 1.6%Monica Showalter: 5.8%American Thinker: 5.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias1.6%This article: 11.5%Monica Showalter: 4.0%American Thinker: 2.6%Halo Effect11.5%This article: 0.0%Monica Showalter: 1.4%American Thinker: 0.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Monica Showalter: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.4%Monica Showalter: 1.4%American Thinker: 1.3%Recency Bias5.4%This article: 1.7%Monica Showalter: 0.8%American Thinker: 0.7%Primacy Effect1.7%This article: 0.0%Monica Showalter: 0.2%American Thinker: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 11.3%Monica Showalter: 7.7%American Thinker: 5.6%Ad Hominem11.3%This article: 0.0%Monica Showalter: 2.3%American Thinker: 4.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.6%Monica Showalter: 4.5%American Thinker: 4.7%Appeal to Authority9.6%This article: 6.7%Monica Showalter: 4.2%American Thinker: 4.7%False Dilemma6.7%This article: 0.7%Monica Showalter: 2.8%American Thinker: 3.3%Slippery Slope0.7%This article: 1.7%Monica Showalter: 0.5%American Thinker: 0.3%Circular Reasoning1.7%This article: 18.6%Monica Showalter: 23.7%American Thinker: 16.8%Hasty Generalization18.6%This article: 2.6%Monica Showalter: 1.3%American Thinker: 0.6%Red Herring2.6%This article: 2.6%Monica Showalter: 0.8%American Thinker: 0.5%Bandwagon2.6%This article: 15.2%Monica Showalter: 9.9%American Thinker: 8.5%Appeal to Emotion15.2%This article: 4.2%Monica Showalter: 4.3%American Thinker: 2.7%Begging the Question4.2%This article: 5.2%Monica Showalter: 5.3%American Thinker: 3.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.2%This article: 0.0%Monica Showalter: 0.5%American Thinker: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Monica Showalter: 2.5%American Thinker: 1.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Monica Showalter: 0.2%American Thinker: 0.5%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 3.0%Monica Showalter: 1.0%American Thinker: 0.8%Composition/Division3.0%This article: 20.5%Monica Showalter: 5.3%American Thinker: 3.6%Anecdotal20.5%This article: 9.1%Monica Showalter: 1.1%American Thinker: 0.4%No True Scotsman9.1%This article: 0.0%Monica Showalter: 2.9%American Thinker: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Monica Showalter: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Monica Showalter: 0.3%American Thinker: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Monica Showalter: 0.4%American Thinker: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Monica Showalter: 0.2%American Thinker: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 3.9%Monica Showalter: 1.9%American Thinker: 0.7%Genetic Fallacy3.9%This article: 3.6%Monica Showalter: 2.0%American Thinker: 3.1%Unattributed Quote3.6%This article: 3.0%Monica Showalter: 2.5%American Thinker: 1.9%Quote-first Misdirection3.0%This article: 53.3%Monica Showalter: 33.4%American Thinker: 22.9%Biased Writer Voice53.3%This article: 13.9%Monica Showalter: 8.0%American Thinker: 5.9%Indoctrination13.9%This article: 0.0%Monica Showalter: 0.9%American Thinker: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 6.8%Monica Showalter: 20.3%American Thinker: 14.5%Politically Right Leaning Bias6.8%This article: 1.0%Monica Showalter: 0.4%American Thinker: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…1.0%

689 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker1.0%attributed speech682writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageEnd Wokeness • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 47 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

End Wokeness

100%flagged-word coverage
7 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%End Wokeness: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-53.8 ptsWriter: 53.8%End Wokeness: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-14.1 ptsWriter: 14.1%End Wokeness: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -6.9 ptsWriter: 6.9%End Wokeness: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-3.7 ptsWriter: 3.7%End Wokeness: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-3.1 ptsWriter: 3.1%End Wokeness: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.