>

I think this is a difficult if not impossible one to get you a delta on. All the observations you laid out in your view are valid, but they all essentially point out the fact that the idea of "wokeism" has been over-generalized to diminish its real intent of supporting disadvantaged people. 
So really your view can be distilled down to: "Over-generalizing political ideologies prevents you from fully understanding them." Which yeah, of course it does. Nothing really controversial to debate there. 
While the idea of "wokeism" and the many ways it's come up in American politics and society is certainly a topic worthy of level-headed debate on this sub, I believe your specific view is un-delta-able here.
"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? >

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!" >

Unfortunately, woke isn't as you described it.   Equality is great.  
But your argument is very telling.   You accuse those who disagree with you incapable of understanding.   That is called closed-mindedness, and is typical of the woke left.      
Drag show readings may be nothingness to you, and they're nothingness to me.  The issue is the forum, and not giving parents a choice.   Not everyone has to think the same way.   Wokeness is the cancel culture that stifles creativity and comedy.    Wokeness is finding a post, tweet or article someone wrote 20 years ago, in a different time and holding them accountable against today's standards.  Wokeism is ruining girls sports by saying that a man who grew up into a male frame and muscle structure can declare he's a woman and push actual women off the podium in the name of political correctness.    Wokeism is catering to the 1 at the expense of the 100.
I can tell by your post that nothing anyone said will change your view.  You are too far biased to see the other side, and there always is one. >

Wokeism is identity politics. Its a radicalist ideology, with very dangerous undertones. You have a right to your opinion, but you shouldnt be shaming people for not agreeing with you. And the way you seem to take a moral high ground based on your political stance is pretty immature >

The term "woke" was stolen from the Black vernacular by white progressives which eventually became a term used by conservatives to ridicule out of touch progressives.
Similar thing happened with with term "social justice warrior." Coined by progressives but later adopted by conservatives to ridicule those same progressives.
Wokeism or whatever you want to call is a movement of moral superiority with deeply religious parallels. It is imperative for followers of this new age religion to signal to others on a daily basis how virtuous they are compare to the rest of us heathens and that they are the "good ones", the white saviors of those downtrodden minority groups which never asked to be save. Remember "Latinx"? Yeah, that came from this movement, unintentionally causing massive offense to an entire hemisphere of people.
But at the end of the day, wokeism is all about self-indulgence. That urge to tell people constantly "hey guys, don't forget about me." #thoughtsandprayers. It's straight up narcissistic personality disorder fueled by social media and being one of the in-group. The more you signal how virtuous you are, the more you feed that dopamine monkey and ascend the hierarchy of your church. >

You're familiar with the "white man's burden" philosophy?
"Wokeness" is literally just neo-white man's burden.
Think about it.  The so-called 'woke' want their ideology to supplant the traditional ideologies of peoples around the globe.  It's no different from "bringing civilization to the barbarians" of the imperial era.
Back then it was "they don't believe in the church and haven't developed properly."
Today it's "they don't believe in gender ideology or intersectionality and haven't developed properly."
Same shit, different generation. >

For the far rightwing people out there, they're just constantly outraged and this is nothing new. They've literally been the same for decades. Remember the "war on Christmas" stuff from the 00's? That was basically the same thing and they'd go ape shit whenever someone said "Happy Holidays!."
For the normal American, though, "wokeism" is the really absurd and annoying shit. When I think of "woke" my idea of it is, personally, probably a little bit narrower than that of the average person. What I mean by that is a black mermaid or something isn't what I think of as "woke." 
When I think of "woke" it's like like this video from some Microsoft thing where they go through 4 minutes of "land acknowledgement." This isn't really important, but it's definitely stupid, and, I hate using the phrase, but, virtue signaling. That's literally all it is. Microsoft doesn't give a shit about that, they're one of the richest corporations in the world with tons of human rights scandals. The only reason for them to do this is to try and not seem so evil towards hyper woke 20 year old white girls. 
When I think of "wokeism" it's things like this. It's not really important but it is definitely annoying. It's all theatrical virtue signaling, usually from a corporation or some really naive person in their early 20's. >

I guess my problem is why not call out that specific issue( inefficient use of time to talk about land acknowledgment) and not the idea of “wokeness” itself? >

So. I'm on the left generally. But here's my issue. It's kind of an angle nobody ever brings up.
So. I moved to the us for work in a very woke city. Upon getting there, myself, and all other employees had to take a week long diversity course. It was every day, for around 8 hours. Black, white, male female whatever. Everyone has to go. This has created this strange industry of people who just speak about woke shit. Everyone knows it's nonsense, but you've got to do it. Is it because the company cares about gay marriage? No. It's a liability issue and helps shield them from potential lawsuits. The entire thing is a scam and everyone involved knows it is. That's what drives me insane.
Talking about current events and race and sexuality and all that stuff? I have no problem with it. Even in the workplace I think everyone has become such a snowflake. Both conservatives and wokesters. Just let people work and if some dude is being creepy then report him to hr. He should know by now what being creepy is, and some seminar won't have any effect on him. >

Those seminars do sounds like spams because they really taught you nothing about sexual harassment. The whole me too movement is about work cultures that breed sexual harassment. 
The training is not BS it seems you just need a better program because 1) (as a guy saying this) people don’t understand “what creepy is” and 2) being creep is just 1 of many ways to sexually harass someone. 
I am not sure how “woke” your city is but most guys have done something creepy because being creepy is just be too awkward or/and overly confident. Most creepy things people do to women are ignored because it not worth calling out 10 people a day and coming off unreasonable to people. >


Most creepy things people do to women are ignored because it not worth calling out 10 people a day and coming off unreasonable to people.

If it's not worth calling out, is it really creepy? This seems like the practice of the Russian government, where they make almost everything technically illegal but don't enforce it, so the law is on the books and everyone ignores it. But then when they want to take someone down it's always easy to find something to hold against them. >

Yes, things that are not specifically worth calling out can and routinely are still creepy. I personally find some things in sexual harassment training dumb because like you I also think “who doesn’t know this specific thing”.  Your last two comments are the literally thinks I thought people knew.
Side note the original commenter changed there post drastically from “ every adult knows not to be creepy”
to “report them if he doesn’t know by now he will never learn”
Which is a perfect example of the real problem with sexual harassers. I don’t think the commenter mistyped what they meant and edited it. They test out what standards they can push and when confronted pretend like they meant something else and finds some one else to harass or new way to harass people. >


They test out what standards they can push and when confronted pretend like they meant something else and finds some one else to harass or new way to harass people.

That reminded me of extreme woke, ironically. >

There is nothing wrong with uplifting historically disadvantaged people and telling their stories/history.
The problem becomes when you start attacking other people and trying to force certain narratives that are either unhelpful, flat out untrue, or are irrational.
It seems many “woke” people present themselves are simply hating white, straight and cis people (usually men) or they think POC are superior to them. This may not be exactly true, but the things they say certainly give that impression. They see anyone who doesn’t conform to what they believe as being an enemy. That’s something I find rather insulting, because I consider myself extremely left, but I reject many of their beliefs/arguments. 
Some things that are detrimental to actually move things forward that many “woke” people say. It’s not all but hear are some things I normally hear or have heard before:


White people are inherently racist. Almost similar to the religious idea of “original sin”. They can also never truly be allies because of that “original sin”.


White people “need to be a part of the discussion on race”, yet their opinions are either ignored or vilified.


Same as above for straight and cis people.


If you support some measure of the right to bear arms and you are a white person, you are a racist and don’t care about the lives of others. (For POC to bear arms, it’s okay because they are choosing to defend themselves from an oppressive system)


For some, gender is merely a social construct and doesn’t have any tangible relations to biology. While I agree that gender is mostly performative, to say that gender has ZERO ties to biology is just ridiculous. Also, many want to be gender iconoclasts, but still consider themselves feminists (what?)


To say that being fat is not really healthy is body shaming and you are a horrible person. Just because someone is fat doesn’t make them a terrible person or morally bad in some way. But it’s just clear that being overweight isn’t good for you. I think that people shouldn’t be shamed, but it’s not anything to be encouraged. Or, at the very least, shouldn’t force every single person to accept that it’s wonderful and beautiful lest they become socially ostracized.


To me, these arguments from “woke” people are entirely unhelpful and make things worse. Usually, if you want things to change, you need to have people come to accept it, yes? How does being belligerent and resentful help in any way? Not only that but some of the arguments go so far out there that they are just ridiculous on their face.
Now, because I don’t 100% agree with everything they say, I’ll probably now be labeled as a right-wingnut who just wants to make the world a bad place. I’m all about having the max freedom that people can have but without forcing anyone to do anything within reason (no I’m not a Libertarian).
So how is this making the world a better place again? >

You may very well be a right wingnut, but your rant is an illustration of the staggering levels of projection that are inherent to anybody complaining about wokeness. 
This entire conversation for years now has been almost entirely one-sided. With very few exceptions, no serious person on the left is talking about being woke anymore. The entire thing is outrage porn articles and tweets of some nut doing or saying some nutty thing and  rage-baiting their audience about it. 
They’ve very successfully fabricated a version of THE LEFT that is foaming at the mouth with hatred for everything they love. And that’s what you’re arguing against. 
The only vein of truth I see in your list of grievances is the tendency for the terminally online leftist to be aggressively policing intellectual purity. I find that incredibly annoying and counterproductive. But that’s just it… it’s counterproductive. It’s a recipe for your ideas staying permanently obscure. It’s the exact opposite of the terminal danger to the fabric of WESTERN SOCIETY that Tuck Tuck Carlsbad and Jo Jo Petebog are constantly ringing the alarm bells about. >

i don't think it is a generational shift, i think its just an empty fashion statement, and therefore its harmful because it impedes genuine political growth in favor of empty politics revolving around "look at me and how virtuous and moral i am" >

The way I see it is that there obviously exist plenty of misguided people on the left who actually ARE desperately virtue signaling over trivial issues, and that can be really annoying when you encounter it. These people are usually terminally online and extremely vocal. I'm talking about people on the margins but they exist. Try being part of a niche fandom that's popular with young lefties and I promise you will see it. If you want a really solid example, look at what happened with Lindsay Ellis getting cancelled. I say all this as someone who considers myself very far left.
The problem is that almost literally everyone on the right conflates even the most tepid pushes for social change with the worst, most annoying (and occasionally actually harmful) crap that young, online lefties have to offer. And they use the term "woke" as a cudgel to fearmonger.
So conversations like this are really difficult to have because virtually nobody on the right is arguing in good faith, and will constantly flip between the two categories outlined above as it suits their argument. The fact that they are incredibly eager to exaggerate and outright lie about reasonable things people have done to make them seem ridiculous, obviously doesn't help. >

i think its most of the entire left from moderate biden voter to anarchist chaz occupant
for a very simple reason.  the modern left is no longer about changing the structure of society, the 'social question'.  because the vast majority of those solidly, actively in the left are either in the middle class or grew up in the middle class.  working class politics are a) uninteresting and uninspiring or b) can be a threat to their interests, whether understood consciously or not.
what the right thinks isn't important, they can think whatever they want, most of the time it will be wrong and they'll be stupider as a result.  i'm interested in what the left really is.  and i think, in the current western political dichotomy, its the part of middle class politics that is about proving your morality and progressive values to other people in your "club", in the same way that middle class families in the old days would compete on who was more upright and moral, now its about who is either more progressive (for blue states) or who is more badass and patriotic (for red states).
because class politics are basically dead, and class consciousness is dead along with it (really for everybody, not even just the working class) there is no alternative; people will acculturate with what is secretly a middle class worldview and assume they are middle class in an unspoken way, and therefore this kind of politics will speak to them.  go ask people and they will overwhelmingly say they are middle class in a way that clearly does not make any sense. rich or poor.  its pervasive.
but that doesn't mean that the real class structures and worldviews no longer exist.  they do, and they give people certain beliefs in subtle ways.  one big one are the "woke" manners.  21st century Victorian middle class social codes >

You don't really define woke or wokeism.  I don't know of a definitive definition from the right.
In effect you think being or doing whatever the right says is woke is unavoidably a good thing?
That doesn't seem defendable IMV. >

I didn’t mean to come off so reductive. But all the things they point as “woke” doesn’t seem like a big deal to me at worst and seems good at best >

Sounds like something people will make podcast about in 20 years in regards to moral panic >

What about the sistematic erase of gingers >

prove examples of systematic prejudice against them between ancient times/the medieval era (when people say some cultures thought them to be witches or vampires) and the airing of that one South Park episode that's whole joke was what ginger's an anagram for (as the whole movie thing you're complaining about happened after that episode and also it didn't happen as much as you think as e.g. some characters like Bloom from Winx Club were kept redhead in live-action, some supposedly-racebent-from-redhead characters like Anita from 101 Dalmatians were actually just dirty blonde etc. and sometimes the comparisons aren't even comparing apples to apples as Michelle Jones wasn't just black Mary Jane Watson with a different name or she would have been a popular girl who modeled, not a nerd) >

There’s nothing new about the phenomenon you are describing. The same narrative existed when I was in college 30 years ago and during the counter culture movement of the 1960’s and 70’s. The Republicans had the Contract with America going in the early 90’s as a stand against progressive politics.The whole point of that conservative movement was to stomp out progressivism and ‘own the libs.’ What’s mainly changed since then is the lip service corporate America offers for progressive causes. Corporate virtue signaling was virtually unheard of until the last 10-15 years. There have been countless progressives fighting for what we now call ‘woke’ culture long before this current era. You can find historical accounts of radical progressive youth challenging the status quo for the entirety of human history. There is nothing new going on at all. The biggest difference is how information technology has unified these progressive people in real time. >

I don't disagree most woke ideas and supporting disadvantaged groups but sometimes the tactics can be too brutal and either counterproductive or cause collateral damage. Woke communities have problems with purity testing,  broken relationships, and a "no bad tactics only bad targets" no holds barred mentality. In my family, some woker members have essentially stopped talking to my grandparents who are really old and out of touch and I think it is bad to break up families over political and social disagreements. 
I like woke ideas, discussions, and activism when it balances effectiveness with minimizing the number of families broken up, people fired, communities broken up and other damage caused. >


I’ve failed to see how caring about and elevating groups that have historically( and I’d argue currently) are being disvantaged is bad. 

Thats the weak spot. You didnt fail to see, you ignored arguments against, cause there s so many, its impossible to miss them.
Turning blind eye to the consequence (actual consequences, no the intended ones) might be the biggest problem of woke movement. And this is done to keep the moral virtue. I am a good person!- this message is the main thing here, everything else ( including people who woke are allegedly trying to help) is secondary >

People complain because the media only portrays the very extreme cases of 'wokeism'. Its just like feminism is a good thing until someone takes it too far. The fact is, there will always be radical and extremists in any of these groups of people that will make the more reasonable people look bad. And the media will jump on those views and highlight extreme personalities such as Andrew tate, Jordan Pieterson, Dylan Mulvaney, etc. Giving the rest of the movement a bad name. >

I think the right wing does cynically use this as a wedge issue to gain power.
However, I think the ideology has real problems.
1) Woke advocates don't use facts to debate, but resort to personal attacks and snuck premise
First of all, wokeness sneaks the premise that it is already moral and everyone who doesn't agree is evil or on the wrong side of history.  Truthfully though unless you believe in objective morality, wokeness doesn't have any rational reason to exist compared to sharia law or hardcore christianity.  Lots of people around the world look at the freedom the west grants and from their point of view, see it as allowing people to hurt and destroy each other.
To them, having peace and safety is way more important than "selfish" freedom.  How can you rationally make an argument that they are wrong?  Morality isn't a set of facts written down by a god somewhere.  Many people just assume they are right, but its based on their subjective emotional feelings.
Additionally many times woke people argue they appeal to tone or make adhom attacks against the person, and try to use social proof to damage their reputation and make them submit.  That's not winning an argument, that's a struggle session meant to dominate other people.
2) Wokeness is deeply racist and bigoted
Secondly, wokeness is racist and bigoted, and makes the world more racist and bigoted.  Under the liberal order, it would be racist to consider someones group identity as the most important thing.  Under Wokeness it's the most important thing, the individual doesn't matter.  You can say this is a "mainstream misinterpretation" of wokeness, but it doesn't really matter how some scholar defines it, what matters is what the majority of people use it for, and they don't use it well.
But, lets stop by some of the woke scholarship.  Ibram X Kendi (fake name of Henry Rogers) says "The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination."  So as you can see even in the scholarship supporting wokeness, there is a baked in element of hateful revenge and racism towards other groups.  
You can also find early works of his saying that all white people are evil aliens from another planet.  Which is kinda hilarious in how racist it is.
3) Wokeness actively hurts people including the Groups it says it wants to help
Finally, wokeness does not do anything to help the groups it says it wants to help.  Typically, it only helps the thought leaders.  Take the socialist Hasan who bought a 3 million dollar mansion. The leaders of BLM org bought multiple mansions. 
But, even if you disregard "thought leaders", and take a look at the actual policy prescriptions, it doesn't read to me like it would actually do anything.  In fact, many of the solutions they advocate for will actively harm and destroy those communities. Just throwing resources at people does not help people.  You're basically giving some poor person a lottery ticket.  You know what happens when people get lottery tickets most of the time?  They destroy their own life. Really what poor people need is skills and pro social behavior so they can have autonomy and power over their own lives.
Another example would be abolishing the police.  Lets be real for a second, the communities that woke want to help are the very same ones that desperately need police the most.  It isn't even a fault of those communities, 99% of poor communities are filled with good people, its just that a small minority of people in those communities fill it with crime and no one does anything about it.
So yeah, TLDR: Wokeness sneaks premises in, uses adhom attacks instead of real arguments, is racist, and damages the people it purports to help while enriching the people at the top of its hierarchy. >

Wokeism encourages playing victim at trivial matters:


A professor's talk about geoscience got cancelled because he is critical of affirmative action.


A professor got suspended and harassed because they denied a student's request to give black students leniency for final exams


A professor got fired for expressing concern that black students were doing worse in her classes. Another professor got suspended and later resigned because he was awkwardly nodding along


A professor got fired for making a tweet saying that reparations are racist >

Excellent list of sources. 
I’d like to see OP respond. >

"wokeism", as you put it, is often a Motte and Bailey. If you're unaware, it's a dishonest tactic in debate/discussion where one makes an argument, and then when criticized, shifts to a similar but typically more general "safe" argument that people don't really oppose.
In the case of "wokeism", the Motte, so to speak, is made up of arguments for things like "positive" descrimination through things like affirmative action and and priority government benefits and how schools should interact with ideological goals.
Then when they're criticized, the Bailey they retreat to is "we just care about minorities". 
Now don't get me wrong, it's perfectly acceptable to hold these views, and there are rigorous defenses for them all. >

Doesn’t that work in reverse too though? Like someone can oppose discrimination and someone just counters with “oh you’re just woke” >

There's people making bad arguments all around. >

Woke got a bad connotation because people claiming to be woke acted completely badshit for a time and non-neurotic people noted. It was a shift in public perception, not a calculated attack. >

What about TV show like Velma. University professor  like Britney Cooper or like Sara Rao? 
Like you didn't mention any of the ugly aspects.  Honestly it's all ugly anti white bs >

Thats the thing. When I think of woke I think of white liberals tbh
Also What about Velma? >

The problem with wokeism is most of it is performative instead of actually helping.  
In the context of how it infects the public school system in California, its setting people up for failure. It pushes people along to the next level whether or not they learned anything in a given year. There are actual policies put in place to ignore bad behavior. The end result is a group of kids that will grow up, go thru a school system where they never failed a class even if they actually did, and when they fail at something in life blame racism instead of themselves. 
As for drag queen story hour, I don't even want a women dressed up like this to tell stories to my children let alone a Man. It's that much creepier to me. >

I'm being petty but I disagree that "it's kids these day" that's at least a little enduring.Its the latest "political correct" except they were too uncreative to come up with a shorter version in the last 30 years so they just stole black people slang.(thought it might be because shorter work better to connect to younger people more which is the demographic they desperately in need of its marketing first and foremost which is why the umbrella keeps expanding because it just means thing they don't like for political reasons hell I don't know the details but people were calling gas stoves Woke the other week).
Tell me Im wrong that you could switch out every article with the phase "woke" out and put "political correct" and would work just as well. >


Tell me I wrong that you could switch out every article with the phase woke out and put political correct and would work just as well.

PC was used almost entirely pejorative and was widely seen as a some what negative trend even by people on the left.
People also admitted it existed. >

It's some of the people who call themselves woke that ruined it for the rest of you. Because now when most people think of woke they think of the obnoxious virtue signalers who feel morally superior to everyone else and make sure you know it. It's become cringey as fuck to hear people refer to themselves as woke. I'm sure there are plenty of people who use it and mean well like yourself I'm assuming, but if you do identify with it, you should consider how it looks from an outside perspective. >

Woke looks to me like left version of things like PMRC or BADD - bunch of busybodies who actually do that "kids these days" you mentioned. Often about same thing. Like Harry Potter. >

Your post reads like a case of evading the issue. Woke[edit-ism] in and of itself is not the problem. No one ( of sound mind) is arguing to not accept other people for who they are. 
It’s the extremes that’s tue issue here. No one cares if Tina who was born Tim reads a book to a kid. The concern is what is Tina wearing, and how revealing is Tim’s cock. 
Or with races. The majority of all Americans and I mean like 99% of us are on board with being against racism, judging people by their character not their skin color and so on. Not woke takes it too far, almost to the point of being regressive. Instead of making everyone inclusive we started separating ourselves in our own groups again.  That’s segregation—> inclusion —> separation. 
It’s these extreme takes of woke culture that cause people to have an issue with with wokeism. Not the actual concept of wokeism. >

Your argument is based on a very watered-down version of what is actually going on in the West. "Paying attention to disadvantaged groups" is not an accurate or honest representation of the shitshow that is leftist politics at the moment. >

Being woke is these days is often an act of forcing something where it doesn't even need to fit and calling everyone who doesn't accept it as being  _sist or _____phobic.
There is no compromise. There's no discussion. It's either what the 'woke crowd' wants or you're just wrong and a horrible person. >

"Woke" are the same people as Zealous Christians. Most of them would have become priests, missionaries etc 20-30 years ago for the same kind of perceived power.
​
"Swapping out the ideology" in my eyes means no change whatsoever. They have their own religious dogma, hierarchies (that they tried to build into corporate structures which is failing fortunately), symbolism etc. >

Woke is the new cancer of our society... >

As someone experienced in child brain function, the trans/drag movement is horrendous. You’ll see the largest number of suicides in the future 18-30 year old age range in 10 or so years. They’re messing with identity development. It’s more normal than anyone knows for boys to want girl toys/clothes and vice versa. They should be allowed to explore. That’s how they form into the person they’re going to be. To have so many adults and the culture around them encourage that dressing in another genders clothes or playing with those toys means they must be that gender is mental manipulation and a sign of narcissism. Literally, by definition. 
Other aspects of woke culture im not equipped to comment on. I think lines are being crossed, and there’s a big theme of believing who yelling loudest makes a change instead of actually doing anything. I’m not seeing anything productive happening, and that’s the issue. Those that are so “woke”, in my view, are perpetuating a narrative the government is loving to push. 
It’s being fed into by power players, but has literally anything changed? No. And the other side is attacking it because it’s becoming so extreme. Further getting nothing done. It’s all a ploy. >

Wokesters would argue the maniuplation was boys playing with toys set to be for boys in the first place. Having boys play with girls toys is kind of deprograming in the other direction >

Not at all, because that would be perpetuating the stereotype that a toy is intended for one gender in the first place. If we’re really deprogramming this, it’d be to remove any gender stigma attached to the toy. Which is why, again, “woke” people have it wrong. >

So what is the process of removing the gendered stigma if not encouraging people to play with toys previously considered gendered? >

Market toys differently. Remove the colors associated with each gender in the ads. It’s not difficult for someone in advertising to figure out. >

Remove the colours of children’s toys from their ads? You think that’s what makes people gender toys? And you think this will be more effective than simply letting the children play with whatever toy they’d like? >

Did I say remove the colors of children’s toys? No. That doesn’t even make sense. 
There’s a way to market dolls without having a pink backdrop and a little blonde girls playing together. I can think of a million representative commercial ideas where both genders are included and the setting is more neutral. Because yes, that is how many toys maintain a stigma. >

How do woke parents interested in gender abolition convince companies that they’ll make more money if they ignore their flashy marketing strategies?
Additionally, the people complaining about wokeism would then hold that up as another example of leftists destroying society. People freak out over animated chocolate’s shoe choices and you think people would be just fine if we suggested removing gendered colouring from advertising? >

Depends on what kind of social awakeness you are talking about.
In The Matrix taking the red pill wakes you up to reality. Those who say they are "red pilled" are saying they are also "woke", they're just using different terminology.
Being "awake" to a social reality doesn't mean it's the same reality for everyone. >

Anecdotal but I think what some people refer to when they use "woke" in a derogatory way is the on-the-nose, painfully obvious and often times downright insulting pandering done by big companies, celebrities and pop-culture in general.
Everyone knows none of these entities give two fucks about disadvantaged groups. Ulterior motives, sneaky, deceptive behavior is gross, and it's especially scummy and exploitative in cases like these. The fact that a brand thinks it's "doing its part" by making some scummy half-assed "inclusive" commercial, or that Mr. and Mrs. Hollywood are making the world a better place by moaning on twitter, while distancing themselves from the very people they prop up in real life. You know most will move on to the next thing when civil rights go out of season, they're fake.
I don't use the word "woke" at all, never have; I'm on board with most of it. But that's my view on the trend. >

Wokeism is basically racism, sexism, or some other form of bigotry which is dressed up as being "okay" because it runs counter to a historical standard.
Which the younger generations seem to consistently fall for. So, maybe a little "kids these days", but not necessarily illegitimate for it. >

To me, it seems more in line with a 21st-century new age Western religion. Similar to puritans of yore. "How godly i am, you don't believe, you're a heathen!"We can't have this. It's not PC!"  "How dare someone say that! That should be illegal!"
It's no different. There's no room for other opinions, just how, under hardcore Christianity their wasn't either. Except I feel it's just being pushed by the West since they've subjugated the world and are trying to erase any culture that doesn't line up with new Western globalist values. It's easier to erase cultures and form them new than let everyone think what they will. Religion is an enemy of any state institution, and if you're a globalist state, you don't have room for racism, religion, or anything. In summary, it all feels like a ploy to get the world to think the same way and have Western powers be "forgiven" because look at all we did to improve! While they still rob you blind and create enemies out of any group that doesn't fit the mold. All while it creates unrest, which in turn gives more power to the state and makes it easier to buzzword their way into control. 
Just my opinion. >

Good point. It even has concepts like original sin (whiteness, or born into privilege) that can never completely be atonement for, has ceremony  and prayer (announcing pronouns and land acknowledgements), and has sacred worship symbols (flags).
It's as if a lot of "woke" activism fulfills a psychological and spiritual need and life purpose for people who are not religious. >

My thoughts exactly, humans are spiritual creatures. In a society based around science, it fills the void for a lot of people. These are the same people that would have been devoutly religious centuries ago. It's all guilt based, just like catholicism. >

so are you saying the science is the problem or the wokeness >

Humans are the problem >

"Woke" or "wokeism" doesn't mean anything anymore because that label just gets slapped on anything that right wing media wants to kick up a fuss over. Black mermaids, green m&m's, drag queens, female superheroes. None of these things are harmful to anyone in any way. Worse case scenario don't watch the movie, don't eat the candy. Go to regular brunch if you don't like these things. It will really be ok. 
I definitely think equality, equity, representation, etc are worthwhile and important but the "wokeness" label at this point is just there to scare conservatives into being mad and to distract from real problems >

What view are you challenging? >

Oh god. Woke is the worst. Woke is the fastest way to ruin anything, completely. You can have a fantastic, kubric-style movie that has you on the edge of your seat from beginning to end. Weave in a woke narrative into that movie and immediately the whole thing is trash. 
Woke is suppressive too. Woke is the plague. I will not change your view. >

"Woke" doesn't have a great definition, but one thing some conservatives claim it incorporates is certain forms of prejudice against white people. For example, some conservatives claim that it is "woke" to believe that "all white people are racist."
Do you agree that that's an objectionable belief? >


Do you agree that that's an objectionable belief?

By asking if it’s an objectionable belief, you are legitimizing it as a serious and important question, which it is not.
I thinking having to listen to people spout nonsense like this just to feed a victim mindset is objectionable. >

It is an important question to ask.
If someone holds views like that, it means they agree with the principles of racial prejudice; They just only want to prejudice against certain races. Which happens to be the exact same thing the "real racists" believe.
I'd prefer we just don't prejudice against people because of their race; Rather than argue which races should be prejudiced against. >

Just because “some conservatives” say they believe this doesn’t make it an important or serious question. >

How many conservatives do or do not believe it isn't relevant in the question's importance.
If you think racism is bad, then you should think the question is important. >

Nope. You can just view this as a straw man argument, which it almost certainly is. >

Great, so you don't agree with any policy that shows racial bias? >

You can keep throwing down straw men. I’ll keep not taking the bait. >

It's an actual question. Do you have no tolerance at all for racial bias, or is there some gray area in your view? >

I'm black. Woke is WAS good when everyone wasn't pushing it. Now people are pushing it and it's creating bad media and terrible over the top pandering. There is no reason for some of the bad writing put into media just to be included in the woke conversation. >

I agree with this to a extent. But I also feel like the media examples tend to be the worst possible examples. Not the mundane examples that happen everyday of average everyday person being more conscious of how they’re actions effect others >

Some of us have moral standards about what kids are exposed to.
Wanting racial equality is good.  Pursuing the white guilt agenda is bad.  Prioritizing racial tokenism over individuals' merit is counterproductive.
Wanting equality for women is good.  But woke feminism has lowered the quality of Hollywood films (such as the Star Wars sequel trilogy).  I never saw the all-female Ghostbusters, but I've heard it's lame.  And I've heard that angry feminism ruined She-Hulk. >

“Equality is good but when we start getting equality it ruins everything. Why can’t we just have all white male actors in everything since they obviously earned it via individual merit?” >

This isn’t what he said, not remotely near what he said, and you’re proving his point by putting words in his mouth >

They’re the same picture. 
Black lead gets cast? Tokenism. 
All female cast? Feminism. 
White male lead? He earned it, obviously. 
Just because they’re smart enough to dress up their bigotry doesn’t mean it’s not bigotry. >

I'm actually fine with a black mermaid.  And I don't have a problem with female roles in well-written movies. >

What are your thoughts on violent and rapist men being locked up in women's prisons? This is one of the more horrifying outcomes of the 'woke' idea that any male can self-identify into womanhood. >

Wokism can support either side, by pretending to care about the safety of women or about transgenders. It's pretty ad-hoc based on what they expect to get the most likes on social media. That's the problem.
As for this particular problem, prisons are the place where rapists are locked up, so they should know how to deal with it regardless of where the prisoner ends up. Separately from this, gender dysphoria is a real medical condition and people who suffer from it should be able to get a gender change as the cure. What's the difficulty? >

Prisons are sex-segregated for good reason. In the UK, this goes all the way back to the early 1800s, when Elizabeth Fry and other advocates of prison reform lobbied the government to pass a law doing so. This was based on extensive evidence, particularly Fry's diaries, which documented the repeated and widespread sexual exploitation of women by male inmates and prison guards.
To throw all this safeguarding away because some men claim to have a so-called female gender identity is quite simply absurd.
Here's how one female ex-prisoner describes her experience incarcerated with such men:

My whole time in prison on constant high alert, my nerves were frazzled with fear.
These incredibly violent men were walking around the communal shower area naked and sometimes clearly aroused. Myself and other women were in cubicles with only a curtain to protect us.
I was shaking with fear. In the end I went to the prison clinic and had a coil fitted because I believed I could be raped at any time. I didn’t want one, I felt forced to do it.
There was around 40 prisoners and two of them were trans. Neither appeared to be women. They dressed as men, they didn’t wear makeup, they were not so far as I know on any hormone drugs, they sounded like men.
One of them was a domestic abuser who was over six feet tall and extremely threatening looking, the other was serving time for murder.
All of the women who were forced to be in that prison with these people were vulnerable in different ways, many of them had been the victims of male violence, irrespective of their own offending.
It is utterly outrageous, evil even, that we were put in a position of having to live in fear of being sexually attacked every day.
I simply do not accept that these two prisoners were women, they were dangerous violent men who could at any point have used their strength to overpower one of the women.

There is no legitimate reason for any male to be locked up in a women's prison. This is where 'woke' ideology has got us, and it's horrific. >


Prisons are sex-segregated for good reason.

They're gender-segregated because their institutional traditions were codified in the very strongly gendered 18th-19th century.

In the UK, this goes all the way back to the early 1800s, when Elizabeth Fry and other advocates of prison reform lobbied the government to pass a law doing so. This was based on extensive evidence, particularly Fry's diaries, which documented the repeated and widespread sexual exploitation of women by male inmates and prison guards.
To throw all this safeguarding away because 

Time to update your science to the 21st century:
We found that, contrary to assumptions, the biggest threat to women serving time does not come from male corrections staff. Instead, female victims are more than three times as likely to experience sexual abuse by other women inmates than by male staff.
Also surprisingly, women inmates are more likely to be abused by other inmates than are male inmates, disrupting the long held view that sexual violence in prison is mainly about men assaulting men. In juvenile corrections facilities, female staff are also a much more significant threat than male staff; more than nine in ten juveniles who reported staff sexual victimization were abused by a woman.

some men claim to have a so-called female gender identity is quite simply absurd.
There is no legitimate reason for any male to be locked up in a women's prison. This is where 'woke' ideology has got us, and it's horrific.

Gender dysphoria is a real psychological issue, the notion that people can only have the gender that matches the shape of their squiggly bits is out of date pseudoscience.
Naturally it's possible to have fraudulent claims, but that's possible for just about everything.
Even if we ignore that, there are homosexual rapists who would then have to get a private prison since they obviously cannot be combined with anyone then either. >

That is an interesting report with some horrifying statistics, but do note that the authors also say:

Our findings might be critically viewed as an effort to upend a women’s rights agenda that focuses on the sexual threat posed by men. To the contrary, we argue that male-perpetrated sexual victimization remains a chronic problem, from the schoolyard to the White House. In fact, 96 percent of women who report rape or sexual assault in the NCVS were abused by men.

Which supports my point about not permitting males in women's prisons.

Gender dysphoria is a real psychological issue, the notion that people can only have the gender that matches the shape of their squiggly bits is out of date pseudoscience. Naturally it's possible to have fraudulent claims, but that's possible for just about everything.

A male with gender dysphoria is not a woman though. He might desperately desire to be, but he is not and will never be a woman. Any 'gender affirming' transition he undertakes is a uniquely male experience. Unlike males with gender dysphoria or 'female gender identities', actual female woman don't need to masquerade as woman; they already are. >


Which supports my point about not permitting males in women's prisons.

No, it doesn't. Those are society-wide statistics. There are prison-specific statistics, why ignore them?
The point remains that being a women in a women's prison in no way protects anyone against sexual assault. So that can't be used as a justification.

A male with gender dysphoria is not a woman though. He might desperately desire to be, but he is not and will never be a woman. Any 'gender affirming' transition he undertakes is a uniquely male experience. Unlike males with gender dysphoria or 'female gender identities', actual female woman don't need to masquerade as woman; they already are.

Your insistence to label people by their birth sex rather than their gender is harmful. Refusing to respect a medical diagnosis of an inmate is actively harmful and denying them medical care. >


No, it doesn't. Those are society-wide statistics. There are prison-specific statistics, why ignore them?

I'm not ignoring them. The reason why most sexual violence in women's prisons would be female-on-female is because it's an overwhelmingly female environment.
The society-wide statistics are important when considering mixing male inmates into the female prison estate. The prison reformers of old already documented what happens in mixed-sex prisons. Contemporary, society-wide statistics indicate that reverting back to this arrangement would cause the same problems. 

The point remains that being a women in a women's prison in no way protects anyone against sexual assault. So that can't be used as a justification.

Yes it can. It's a question of degree. By adding males to the female prison estate, all evidence indicates this makes things a lot worse for women than they already are. Not just an increase in sexual violence by inmates who are much stronger than average, but also the additional risk of impregnation. And the pervasive fear that arises from all of this.

Your insistence to label people by their birth sex rather than their gender is harmful. Refusing to respect a medical diagnosis of an inmate is actively harmful and denying them medical care.

These are words on a screen, no-one is being harmed by reading a viewpoint on sex being the determining factor on whether someone is a woman or a man. You might disagree with this point of view, but please tone down the hyperbole. >

It's not intuitive to naive people. Just like it's not intuitive why being a "nice guy" is bad, or why helicopter parenting can be bad.
"Many leftists have an intense identiﬁcation with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals) or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems. (We do not mean to suggest that women, Indians, etc. ARE inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology.)
Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong and as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.
Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist ﬁnds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist’s real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful." >

This sounds like Stormfront mumbo jumbo tbh >

It was written by a math professor who didn't like technology >

Sounds like a huge asshole.  Assholes like that usually end up in prison.  Where is that professor at these days? >

I take it you've heard about him before? But it will obviously be a useless conversation if all you have is your ad hominem. Is he wrong? Why do you think so? Can you actually refute him or do you have to Google "Why X is wrong" and send me the first link you find and hope that it was written by somebody competent? >

He's wrong because all he's doing is making baseless declarations. Confident declarations aren't even really 'points' nor does confidence equal correctness.
"The Left hates Western Civilization" is especially stupid.
Trying to pretend that pointing out problems in a system means that they agree that the problems should exist in said system a disingenuous stretch, and a "good point" shouldn't rely on such a huge disconnected stretch like this. >

"It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientiﬁc knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be deﬁned. But it is obvious that modern leftish philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality.
They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisﬁes the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior). The leftist’s feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classiﬁcation of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual’s ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is “inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s, because he has not been brought up properly."
This is all spot on, dude. You just reject it because you've internalized this very issue yourself. You're replying with something negative, not because it's wrong or because you know better, but because you realize that it's it makes the left look bad, and you just happen to subscribe to left-wing views yourself >

It's not spot on. It takes a few real things and hyperoblizes them beyond rationality to make "the Left" some bitter enemy of the state. It's nonsense. It's a gross over-generalization in order to villainize of a huge swath of people.
You posting more nonsense doesn't make it more correct. Declarations don't make truths, nor does confidence alone.
Come on, dude, you reject my rejection because you've internalized this hyperbole yourself. You're replying with someone else's negative words, not because they're right or that you know better, but because you don't realize that these are all Right-wing talking points and don't reflect reality, and you just happen to subscribe to right-wing views yourself. (specifically, the Right wing notion of 'if you don't agree with us, you hate America and the West:' nonsense) >

It's written so plainly, what's not to get? Read it as psychology and it makes sense.
"Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principles, and moral principle does play a role for the leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power. Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of beneﬁt to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that afﬁrmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand afﬁrmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that afﬁrmative action discriminates against them." >

My comment is written plainly, yet you didn't get it. Read it as psychology and it makes sense
Your "truths" are so hyperbolic they negate themselves. Is that plain enough for you? 
Also, posting more nonsense by the same incorrect person doesn't make their nonsense more true. Is that plain enough for you? >

Generally I agree with your view, though I disagree with how you arrive at the view. Regarding

I’ve failed to see how caring about and elevating groups that have historically (and I’d argue currently) are being disadvantaged is bad.

Few people think it is bad to help those that are disadvantaged. But the issue that people take with it is twofold:

They don’t believe these groups are disadvantaged.
They are losing their privilege.

One may or may not believe (1) and still believe (2). But some people are simply blind to the plight of disadvantaged groups, whether by choice or circumstance.
An example of (2) is the status of Christianity in the United States. Most religious individuals in the US are Christian, and that’s fine. But it has led to many decisions that privilege Christianity over other religions or irreligious beliefs (for instance displaying the 10 Commandments in a court room or on public grounds). When moving towards egalitarianism regarding religious belief, this means removing the privilege that is held. To the privileged individual, this feels like discrimination. Of course it isn’t, it’s simply removal of special status.
Wokeism is a term given to something that the Right doesn’t understand. Some of them can’t. Some of them won’t. Some of them will never hear an alternative viewpoint because of the media they consume. They feel attacked. And when you feel attacked, you give into fear mongering, which is what much of their media provides. It’s not that they genuinely have an aversion to helping the disadvantaged. So I think a better route is not to say “Why don’t you want to help the disadvantaged!?”, rather “Here’s why these people are disadvantaged.” Not everyone will listen. In fact few probably will. But understanding where the real disagreement is is vital. >

Thanks for the response! >

Lots of people believe communism/Marxism is bad. Assume you think it's bad.
If I could also convince you that "wokeism" is "cultural Marxism" you would have no choice but to conclude that being woke is bad.
That's it. That's the whole argument. 
That said it's not equivalent to "kids these days" because it's not an ancient phenomenon. The Greeks lamented the youth.
Being conscious of and working to improve civil rights (seems to be the most general way to define "woke") is a relatively new phenomenon. Remember 250 years ago slavery was pretty normal. Women were property too. It was like that for millennia! >

I don't agree that 'wokeism is cultural Marxism' is the whole argument. You only need to look at the replies here to see other objections. 
That comes across like you saying 'people who don't like woke policies just dont understand it' rather than actually engaging with those objections. 
It is the more extreme/ absurd woke talking points that receive mainstream criticism, that criticism does not solely come from people opposed to civil rights progress. Indeed some argue it is actually harmful to their idea of civil rights progress. 
I support equal opportunity. Don't support corporate pandering, 'positive discrimination' , 'theybys' and so on. >


I support equal opportunity.

So you're woke. You can still disagree with things that are considered "too woke" and you should. But there is a large contingent of people, and I argue the people who have used the term derogatorily the most, who believe you fall into the category. >

Nope. 
I support equal opportunity. I dont support equity, ie equal outcome. Like I say, I disagree with positive discrimination. That in itself would, I think, make me 'unwoke' seeing as it's a pretty fundamental aspect rather than an extreme part? 
I genuinely think a lot of the people you believe would label me woke for believing in equal opportunity would also say they believe in equal opportunity, but again with a different idea of what that means. >

If someone has a "different idea of what equality of opportunity means" they probably don't believe in equality of opportunity. >

I feel like you are ignoring what I am saying. 
One person could define equality of opportunity as treating all job applicants the same. Lets call this the traditional definition.
Another could define it as giving preferential treatment to underrepresented groups, and discriminating against over represented groups to achieve a more 'equal' outcome. Lets call this the woke definition. 
Which one doesnt believe in equality of opportunity? It depends who you ask!
I disagree with the woke definition. Doesn't that mean I am not woke? 
Seems odd for you to ignore how the conversation has changed in the last 20 years and just label me woke when I explicitly say that I am not / disagree with many parts of it. >

Look I don't consider myself woke either but my views have often been labeled woke. So has the view "equal opportunity" plainly stated, a view you said you hold.
When enough people, especially social conservatives in this case, label something "woke" it becomes woke even if it's just been a standard view.
I think you're missing that what "wokeness" is has crept from actual communism and equality of outcome being enforced by the government to just run of the mill central beliefs like "black people deserve to be treated equally to white people".
You have disagreed with that assessment but that's how I see it used. Words mean what people mean when they say them and the people using the term "woke" as a pejorative the most are the far right, not moderates. >

Ok I get where you are coming from. 
The word does clearly mean different things to different people. I get the perspective of using the definition per the majority of its usage. I honestly think that the word woke is more commonly applied to the extremities of identity politics than the more mundane parts, but think we have to agree to disagree on that. 
If you asked the public whether 'black people should be treated equally to white people' is a woke belief, you would get a spectrum of answers. Personally I think that statement is actually the opposite of a woke belief, given woke support for affirmative action, reparations etc.