>

The people who are loudest about professing their activism for underprivileged groups too often use it as a shield to criticism against themselves. It's a very easy and effective way to immunize yourself and deflect valid arguments from critics and opponents.
For example, anyone who criticized the 2016 all-female Ghostbusters movie could be labeled and dismissed as a misogynist. That's it. Discussion over.
You can apply this to almost any situation where you are criticizing or questioning an idea (any idea) or action (any action), and they can dismiss your criticism as "being a bigot" because they are a self-proclaimed advocate for the underprivileged, and an attack against them is an attack against the group. "How can you say that? Obviously you don't care about __ , you ___-phobe!"
"cultural shift in the United States towards paying attention to disadvantaged groups."
Paying attention?  Or patronizing, placating, and infantilizing some while limiting, blaming, and shaming others?
It is good, fair, and right to treat everyone with the respect they deserve.  A person's moral value is not derived from skin color, or sex, or height, or ethnic background, or religion etc. but rather their humanity and their actions.
But this is wholly different from "wokeness" as it is applied.   For example, take the coca cola company that was exposed via a whistle blower that their "confronting racism" training actually contained "be less white".      You cannot solve racism one way by applying it a different way.    And the ridiculous thing is that Coca Cola knows this.  But they do it to earn brownie points with whatever group they are trying to placate.
Much in the same way one cannot say they are for women and girls and need safe spaces for women, and say that this is a woman and his discomfort somehow takes priority over the comfort of biological women and girls.
And then there are universities that, astoundingly, segregate by race in dorms and ceremonies.     One can't have it both ways: either one treats people the same regardless of their race, or one divides, categorizes, and segregates. And in some cases...whatever this is.
And it's not just in the US.   We've seen people arrested for making jokes in the UK for instance.  France has been seeing increased divisiveness culturally as well.
People have been fired for following the "wrong" twitter accounts.  Or for suggesting that men and women are different.  The woke press called Damore's memo "Anti-Diversity", when he was attempting to break what he called an ideological echo-chamber where diversity of views was not allowed. Agree or disagree with his assertions, he was proven correct for being fired for having a different perspective.  It should be noted that Damore is Autistic so it should have come as no surprise that he tends to see things differently but he was fired anyway.
As for the drag stuff, I wonder what is the limit?   We've already seen a "drag kid" dance for men.  I submit that no child should be in a bar, let alone dance for dollars.  If it was a biological, underage female dancing for straight men, I don't think it would be a discussion.  But in the woke mindset, the child is brave and to oppose such acts is bigotry.  "Why are you making such a big deal about this?" comes up quite often in these kinds of discussions.
In extreme cases, woke outrage and ridicule has led some to suicide.
And then there is the less important stuff like wokeness driving really really bad art and entertainment or celebrities complaining about "cultural appropriation."
So no, wokeness is not merely people being sensitive to others who might have had a different life experience or helping to make the world a better place by lending a hand to those who face difficulty.  Everyone would be fine with that.  But instead we have a continually shifting set of standards over which they can be outraged. >

I’d like to see the OP respond to this one >

Seriously.  I'm saving it for future use. >

The problem is that "woke" is such a broad, vague term that it can mean literally anything.
Affirmative action is "woke."
Drag shows are "woke."
The San Francisco proposed plan to give every black resident a lump sum of 5 million dollars in reparations is  "woke."
Hamline University firing a professor for Islamaphobia after showing a classical depiction of Muhammad in an Islamic art class is "woke."
Some of these things might be good. Some of them might be bad. But simply lumping them all into one giant category of "woke" and calling it universally "good" is overly reductive. >

Is there really a SF proposal to give black people 5M? >

So? >

That's it. Not entertaining this troll anymore. 
"So?" 
Gotta be a joke. >

Not trolling. Reparations are good >

Alright. How about it comes out of your wallet first >

Not out of everyone's wallet, in proportion to their tax liabilities?