The Ghosts of Woke 1.0 77%

By River Page74%

8/10/2026, 4:10:37 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Anecdotal, and Representativeness Heuristic, with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 43.3% saturation with 88 hits. Analysis detected 626 faulty-reasoning hits from 203 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 59.9% and a BS Rank of 77% (7,426 of 32,072 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 76.80% of the article peer group.

A specter is haunting the midterms—the specter of Woke 1.0. 
And it hasn’t scared Democratic primary voters one damn bit! 
Over the past several weeks, Wisconsin Democrats learned that their leading candidate for governor, State Assembly member Francesca Hong, had, in the early 2020s, taken a number of radical ultraleftist positions, most of which she has recently walked back. 
These included: 
A 2020 tweet calling for Thanksgiving to be canceled. 
A 2021 tweet that said “Police exist to uphold white supremacy. 
Defund then abolish. 
Reform can’t be an option.” 
And a video in which Hong said “My proximity to whiteness continues,” in reference to her white husband and Wasian son—just to name a few. 
It’s all very weird. 
But Democratic voters don’t seem to care. 
Hong is still currently set to dominate in Tuesday’s Democratic primary. 
A lot of young Democratic politicians are invested in a peak-woke amnesty, including New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who recently started the process of freezing her eggs in preparation for what many have speculated will be a run for president in 2028. 
On Sunday, after she was asked about Francesca Hong’s previous statements about defunding the police, AOC told ABC News that: 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 8.4%River Page: 3.6%The FP: 4.8%Confirmation Bias8.4%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.0%The FP: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.4%River Page: 1.8%The FP: 4.1%Availability Heuristic5.4%This article: 20.7%River Page: 3.1%The FP: 1.6%Representativeness Heuristic20.7%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.0%The FP: 1.1%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 5.4%River Page: 0.7%The FP: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias5.4%This article: 4.9%River Page: 9.7%The FP: 8.5%Framing Effect4.9%This article: 0.0%River Page: 1.2%The FP: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.2%The FP: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 5.4%River Page: 0.7%The FP: 1.5%Optimism Bias5.4%This article: 2.0%River Page: 0.9%The FP: 1.6%Pessimism Bias2.0%This article: 33.0%River Page: 11.1%The FP: 9.2%Negativity Bias33.0%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.0%The FP: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.0%The FP: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 20.7%River Page: 2.5%The FP: 1.6%In-Group Bias20.7%This article: 12.3%River Page: 1.5%The FP: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias12.3%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.0%The FP: 1.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%River Page: 2.3%The FP: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 9.9%River Page: 2.0%The FP: 1.8%Recency Bias9.9%This article: 19.2%River Page: 3.6%The FP: 0.9%Primacy Effect19.2%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.0%The FP: 2.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 1.5%River Page: 0.2%The FP: 1.0%Straw Man1.5%This article: 20.7%River Page: 7.5%The FP: 3.1%Appeal to Authority20.7%This article: 2.5%River Page: 0.5%The FP: 2.3%False Dilemma2.5%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.0%The FP: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 43.3%River Page: 16.1%The FP: 8.0%Hasty Generalization43.3%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.0%The FP: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.0%The FP: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 7.4%River Page: 5.6%The FP: 5.0%Appeal to Emotion7.4%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.9%The FP: 1.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.0%The FP: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.0%The FP: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.0%The FP: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 21.7%River Page: 6.9%The FP: 3.3%Anecdotal21.7%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%River Page: 1.3%The FP: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.2%The FP: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 20.7%River Page: 4.4%The FP: 2.2%Unattributed Quote20.7%This article: 5.4%River Page: 3.8%The FP: 1.7%Quote-first Misdirection5.4%This article: 17.2%River Page: 20.9%The FP: 13.8%Biased Writer Voice17.2%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.9%The FP: 2.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.0%The FP: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 20.7%River Page: 10.7%The FP: 2.7%Politically Right Leaning Bias20.7%This article: 0.0%River Page: 2.4%The FP: 3.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

203 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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