I keep reading people—progressives, of course—asking "What do they mean by woke, anyway?" Well, I'm here to help.
There is, naturally, an original meaning of the word from progressives themselves. It's an old metaphor that was re-popularized by Black Lives Matter after the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson. It meant, roughly, being perceptive of racial prejudice, especially in the criminal justice system and more generally in the area of social justice.
Simple enough. But what does it mean to modern conservatives who use it pejoratively? I don't think this is much of a mystery either. It refers to a good idea that's been taken way too far.
This is a common dynamic. Once an idea is let loose on the world, there will always be a cadre of supporters who try to push it to its hyperlogical endpoint. Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn't. Human nature being what it is, it's usually the latter in the short term but sometimes the former in the longer term.
Woke is still in the short term, so naturally as people experiment with more and more unusual interpretations in order to test boundaries, it's going to inspire lots of pushback. This is because some of these interpretations really are dumb, while some is because conservatives have an unfortunate animus toward being perceptive of racial prejudice of any kind, even when it's pretty obvious.
Anyway, that's what woke means to conservatives. Its overall proximate cause is a dislike of anything that suggests white people sometimes act badly, while its case-specific causes are usually just matters of cherry picking the dumbest and most extreme examples of progressive attempts to promote less obtuse language. This will probably never change since it has the happy effect of allowing conservatives to ignore the problem being addressed.
Question regarding Micheal Brown. How many people on this blog still believe the "hands up, don't shoot" narrative?
No idea what you mean, b/c I'm too distracted with Tamir, Philando, John (Crawford), Sandra, Stephon,....
I think the cop could have arrested Brown without killing him.
I think it’s unlikely that the cop was in danger of death or serious injury when he killed Brown, which means that the homicide wasn’t a legitimate act of self defense.
Why don't you think the cop was in danger? I don't recall every detail of this case but I do recall Brown was a giant of a man and physically going after the cop.
From what evidence? Body or surveillance camera evidence only, please - the police have a long record at this point of lying about encounters and NOTHING a LEO says can be trusted without hard corroborating evidence.
I actually read the grand jury transcripts cover to cover. You can find them online. My opinions are based on that. First, no way, no how was there ever going to be a conviction of the cop. Just not enough evidence to overcome "reasonable doubt". Second, the AG knowing that, really didn't want to push for the "truth". He went very light on the cop, probably figuring that all he could do was make things sound worse for the cop, but never get beyond "reasonable doubt", and therefore his best bet was to lay off completely. I think that was a horrible mistake. Again, he wasn't going to ever get this to a successful trial, but he could have laid out something that revealed more of the "truth" of what happened that day.
Based upon the transcripts, I've got what I consider a "most likely" scenario of what probably happened that day. My guess is that the cop yelled at Brown for jay walking, Brown mouthed off, the cop pulled the car up to Brown with a "What did you just say?" attitude, probably grabbed at Brown through the window, and then shit got bad. They started fighting through the window, the cop pulls his gun, they struggle over it, the gun goes off, Brown understandably freaks and runs, and the cop pursues.
Brown is getting away, he's ahead of the cop, yet for *some* reason he stops and turns around. His hands probably aren't up in surrender, but despite being ahead of the cop and running away, he thinks his best bet is to stop and turn around. My guess is that the cop took a shot. One of the bullet wounds could have been consistent with being shot from behind. Far from clear or definitive, but certainly consistent. And I've got no reason I can think of why Brown would otherwise stop and turn around and face the cop.
The cop then proceeds to shoot and kill Brown.
All of the above is consistent with the grand jury testimony, which again, you can go read cover to cover like I did. Absolutely none of the above, I believe, could have been proven "beyond a reasonable doubt". But it's the only scenario that makes any logical sense to me. But there's a huge difference between, "This is my best guess" and "a good prosecutor could bring this to trial and get a conviction". And this case, it's pretty clear from the transcripts that the prosecutor didn't even want to try and push on the story.
Brown had possibly already suffered from being shot during the struggle at the cruiser (PO insider, Brown outside), then the foot pursuit and eventually six total rounds entered Brown for a total of twelve expended (two at the cruiser). While details are scanty due to eye witness accounts, the bullets and their wounds aren't. Brown was unarmed, except for Cigarillos. 90 seconds elapsed from the time Wilson stated contact.
This is the country we live in.
Brown was fairly big but at age 18 was arguably not really a man, and at 6'4" and 300 lbs. still well short of anything I would consider gigantic. Andre the Giant, for instance, was a clear foot taller than Brown. Also, in all the news coverage of that incident, nobody ever mentioned the size of the cop that shot him.
My buddy's mother makes $50 per hour working on the computer (Personal Computer). She hasn’t had a job for a long, yet this month she earned $11,500 by working just on her computer for 9 hours every day.
Read this article for more details.. https://payathome.blogspot.com/
Any progressive who asks the question already knows this is the answer. It’s a rhetorical question that conservatives invariably don’t know how to answer. We know we can’t change minds so it’s a least a little heartening to watch them squirm.
We all know what conservatives are decrying when they decry "woke": "[insert epithet for Black people, starts with letter 'n'] lovers".
Lots of people (but mostly conservatives) use "woke" as a pejorative not because they have animus towards openly acknowledging racism or a lack of empathy. They do so because they don't like change.
I think you'll find many people (but especially conservatives) resistant to change, wanting to hold onto their tribe, its norms, and its practices.
Loss of privilege feels like persecution
As a conservative, I can say its not all change that I and people I know are opposed to. It's change that we perceive is ridiculous. Unfortunately, a lot of the change for which liberals advocate is considered ridiculous by many.
When a group of people or a single person blocks change that a majority accepts, that's pernicious to society and democracy.
It's all the more deleterious if that action is driven by tribalism, not thoughtful consideration and discussion.
Do you feel it was ridiculous to own humans as property? Enough to begin a war? This isn't an apple or orange comparison, because change that is felt to be ridiculous or not is a cause of much conflict, whether it's bathroom rules, pronouns, borders, or outright state sanctioned slavery.
Not sure I understand what you're trying to say. Are you equating slavery with with using preferred pronouns?
Well, yeah, sorta. They tried with "political correctness", which had a pretty decent 20 year run. It was losing its ooomph so they switched to "woke" and whoever is in charge of conservative language (Rupert?) was smart to do so, as it is a punchier, more pungent word. They'll get some more mileage out of it, but it doesn't solve their basic problem that most suburban moms don't want their kids using the "n" word all day, which of course it what you do if you want to show how not-woke you are.
In my experience, there is something to the complaints. Not a national problem, but still
https://www.mattball.org/2022/11/woke-fragility-and-what-is-necessary-to.html
Conservatives, Moderates, and classical Liberals use "woke" to refer to performative Progressives who don't effect real change.
This post and the resulting comments cover this topic thoroughly:
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2021/11/28/i-need-a-new-word-for-woke/
Sorry, but I don't find the linked post convincing.
First, the author compares "woke" to "politically correct", which he claims "started out positive and then became satirical". No, actually, the phrase "politically correct" was *always* satirical; at some point in the distant past some leftists used it jokingly to describe positions held by their overly-zealous allies, but then right-wingers picked it up as a cudgel against any idea they didn't like. You will never find a serious example of someone endorsing a position on the grounds that it is "politically correct."
As for "woke", the author notes that it originally meant "'alert to social injustice' (by that I mean *true* social injustice)". Well, yes, but this is a nice example of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, helpfully flagged by the author's own words. I'm pretty sure that *everyone* is against social injustice, as long as they get to define what constitutes "true" social injustice. If anyone disagrees with the merits of someone else's grievance, or the way they express it, by all means make the case, but they don't win the argument by simply dismissing the grievance as "woke".
"the phrase "politically correct" was *always* satirical; at some point in the distant past some leftists used it jokingly to describe positions held by their overly-zealous allies"
Being from the distant past (60s-70s) I clearly remember "politically correct" used non-ironically, non-jokingly, meaningful and worth striving for. It meant much the same thing as woke does now, in KD's definition (his 2nd paragraph). And as others have noted, it suffered the same right-wing distortions that woke is now experiencing.
But it had an original, positive meaning to those who were there.
OK -- I stand corrected. As someone from that same distant past, I don't remember ever hearing the term used back then, and more to the point I have seen essays by people who have taken a deeper dive into the question than I have who came to the conclusion that leftists always used the term ironically. (For what little it's worth, Wikipedia agrees.) But I accept your evidence.
May I amend to: "The phrase was *usually* used jokingly, before right-wingers picked it up as a term of derision." ?
Ron DeSantis: Florida is where woke goes to die.
If you're wondering what does DeSantis means by "woke," here's Lee Atwater to explain it for us:
You start out in 1954 by saying, “N___er, n___er, n___er.” By 1968 you can’t say “n___er”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N___er, n___er.”
I'm on the center-left. I believe racism is a problem and that we should take action to fix it. I also believe that the total lack of tolerance for dissent that woke activists display is toxic and grotesque. I've had woke people try to get me to change my views to match theirs, not by giving me an argument that makes sense, but rather by telling me that it's socially unacceptable to disagree. I found that enraging and it has left me with a permanent, vehement dislike of the far left that I didn't have when I was younger.
And was this fairly mild disagreement - my understanding of racism and ideas about how to solve it differ from theirs, but I agree that getting rid of it is important. It is clear to me that when you don't tolerate any dissent, disparage debate, and demand that anyone making any demand that comports with your ideology should be immediately indulged with no questions asked, you're on the road to a very bad place. Groupthink leads to insanity - we've seen this again and again, yet the woke insist on treating any intellectual challenge like it's a physical threat.
The problem with woke ideology is not its policy positions per se. It's the total lack of sanity and good manners, the total refusal to recognize that people who disagree with you are people too. They claim to value diversity, yet demand total conformity.
If you haven't encountered these people first hand, I hope you never have to, but you should know that they exist and are absolutely damaging the reputation of the American left as a whole by being constantly awful and rude to people. Middle of the road voters can easily be pushed into the Republican column by an encounter with them. The problem is real. All sane Democrats need to take it seriously.
“ Middle of the road voters can easily be pushed into the Republican column by an encounter with them.”
I see this attitude a lot, and yet I never see it applied to Republicans. No matter how far their lunatics go it’s just ignored. And their lunatics are far more influential at the political lawmaker level than our lunatics.
That is true, but does not affect what shapeofsociety says. The fact the Republicans wnet bananas is not reason for the left side to go too far from the median.
Plenty of people have indeed been pushed into the Democratic column by Trump, conspiracy theories, and right-wing insanity. Meanwhile the woke are pushing people in the other direction. The parties are in a dead heat, electorally. I'm optimistic that we can purge our insane wing before they will be able to purge theirs, but effort is required to make it happen.
The Republicans are actually not ignoring this. The sane among them know perfectly well that having a misinformed base that nominates nutcases who then lose winnable races is a problem. Unfortunately for them, the right-wing media complex makes money by being crazy and making the Republican base ever crazier. I am not sure how they can break out of this doom loop.
I don't think that's true. In the last couple elections I, for the first time in my life, did not vote R in a few races.
Analyses of the lackluster performance of the GOP in the recent midterms have been making that exact point: Republican embrace of extremist candidates and rhetoric shoved independents away with both hands.
Like what?
As I said:
"And [this was] fairly mild disagreement - my understanding of racism and ideas about how to solve it differ from theirs, but I agree that getting rid of it is important."
No matter how much I tried to convey this, all they did was get upset and then try to use their upset emotions as a replacement for a logical argument.
Generally speaking, it’s really best for allies to follow instead of trying to lead. I’m a middle-aged feminist white woman and while I’m pretty comfortable fighting the battles I’ve always known, I’m not qualified to act as a general for the younger and nonwhite troops. I also don’t expect to “solve” sexism/misogyny, and definitely not racism… but I would never ask white men the best way to address either because historical privilege clouds thinking, to put it as gently as possible.
Anyway, yes, young, zealous people can be irritating, and it’s easy to find their dogmatism off-putting. But they need that clarity of purpose every bit as much as we older types need to balance different perspectives and interests. Coalitions are never easy to manage, so those of us who didn’t manage to “solve” social problems in our youth— and for us Gen Xers, mostly contributed to them— should probably just shut up and find ways to make ourselves useful without lecturing.
+1
If somebody wants me to defer to them, first they must make a persuasive argument for why I should. When I get social aggression and emotional blackmail instead of a rational argument, I'm not rewarding that with deference. An "ally" who defers completely and never asks questions is not an ally, but a sycophant.
A position of leadership has to be earned. You earn it by saying things that make sense, demonstrating good character, and demonstrating competence.
Old and young should be in a conversation where both are expected to listen and take the other's view and experience into account. Neither should expect to win arguments by default simply by disparaging the inexperience of youth or claiming the old are out of touch. Nor is it valid to dismiss someone just because they belong to a privileged group, any more than it is ok to dismiss the disadvantaged. Every perspective has a part to play in helping the whole community find the truth. If you're shutting off that essential conversation and telling people that virtue is "shut up and make yourself useful" you're en route to groupthink, losing touch with reality, and ultimately, disaster.
Sorry but I'm sick and tired of mansplaining and the worst offenders lack any understanding of why it's so bad.
I think you're underestimating the non-racial angle as well. It's clearly just a term that refers to any kind of left cultural politics, not just on race in general, and often to cancel, which is the verb to the noun.
90% of the traction they get with younger people isn't based on racism, but on the assumption that the vigorous censorship/shunning/ostracism/defenestrating isn't always on the up and up and is often political/social more than based on real harm. If the youngers weren't so naive about the depth of racism and homophobia, they would have an easier time ignoring the really terrible straw man examples that make themselves Internet famous out there.
It's actually the fear of cancellation with good intentions that scares young people into the arms of the right more often than it brings them into line, since the age is more or less defined by rebellion and close relations with friends instead of family.
But hey politics is about burning heretics instead of winning converts for most people these days so whatever.
Kevin, you are overthinking this one. "Woke" is current conservative insult slang for "anything with dislike and disagree with." There is no other explicit content or good faith analysis with which to engage. The rest of us should simply ignore it, except for a quiet chuckle at the vapidness a wide swath of conservatives.
Yes indeed I think when Bill Maher renames his show "The Not Woke Zone" (he's not clever enough to call it "The Woking Dead", alas...) you'll know this reaction thing (at least this small part of it) has peaked.
Yes, the irony. Maher is supposed to be this guy with great comedic sense, able to detect absurdities and use them to create humor.
Bingo! And you beat me to it, by hours. "a good idea that's been taken way too far." is deeper than your average MAGAhead is willing to go. It's like "fascist", "communist", "socialist", and other perfectly good, meaningful words that in common usage have deteriorated to mean simply "I don't like it."
Actually, it's more like "I've been told not to like it by the opinion makers I have chosen to follow."
In their lexicon I've always thought "socialist" means "they'll take your stuff" and "communist" means "they won't let you do stuff." I'm not so sure what they'd mean by fascist-- maybe "they won't stop nagging you" or something along those lines.
You are giving them too much credit. Whenever I see someone on Facebook denouncing "communist" or "socialist" (the words are used interchangeably) some utterly routine policy that Eisenhower would have found unremarkable, I ask for a definition. The failure rate so far is 100%, and this on an open book quiz. These words, as used by the vast majority of right wingers, contain no semantic content apart from inchoate disapproval.
The word "socialist" has been used to refer to so many different political positions that it is effectively meaningless. Republicans use it to imply that Democrats are commies without saying so explicitly, since saying it outright would be too obviously nuts. "Socialism" is not a category, it's a category error.
Yup. I saw a YouTube video discussing a military vehicle. When the presenter got to the point of explaining that it was a gasoline-electric hybrid, he paused to assure his viewer that this was not because it is "woke" but because the system works really well.
...and too many people either are or might as well be gaslighting the other side....the distinction being that it's only gaslighting if you know you are messing with the other person's head. But like that corollary of Occam's Razor, to never attribute to malign intent that which can be explained by simple stupidity, so to0 people stupidly copycat gaslighting without understanding that it *is* gaslighting, but think it truth and righteous. Either way you end up hatred and bigotry.
I don’t see “woke” as just referring to race. I see it as having a “walk a mile in your shoes” moment. Here’s a “moment” I had with regard to women:
A long time ago I was living in an apartment in San Francisco in a relatively nice area (if you are familiar, 9th and Irving). Lots of restaurants and small shops, close to Golden Gate Park. I was chatting with a woman about my age who lived in the building. I mentioned that I liked to walk the neighborhood in the evening and people watch. She said she would never go out on the streets there at night. I was shocked. I saw the neighborhood as really safe. As I walked around that night I saw things I had not noticed before. People in dark shadows, park people, etc. I never saw these things as dangerous. It occurred to me that there was no chance that I would be harassed and possibly molested. I had a “woke” moment. I saw that as a male I had a completely different life than women have. I don’t face dangers they face.
I think a lot of people had a moment like that with George Floyd. If I bought something with a counterfeit $20 I wouldn’t expect to be thought of as passing counterfeit money and I wouldn’t expect the police to immediately pull out their sidearm when talking to me. And I wouldn’t expect to be killed.
Same with Tamir Rice. I was that kid playing with my Fanner-50 toy gun. No one called the police. I wasn’t killed. I saw that video. That’s not how I expect the police to act. I’m not black.
Great story! This is why it's so frustrating to constantly hear the wingnut mockery of the term "woke." They've never had such a moment. They're sitting there, fat dumb and happy in their little MAGA worldview, not looking around at the actual world.
Too many are not only short on actual information, they're short on empathy, too,. "Oh, that would NEVER happen to ME" is what I've frequently heard, with the implication that therefore, those bad things either don't exist, or the victims somehow deserved it.
One quibble: you write
"what does it mean to modern conservatives who use it pejoratively...It refers to a good idea that's been taken way too far."
I don't think they acknowledge the "good idea" part. Bringing the subject up at all (systemic racism, gender nonconformity, whatever) is a nonstarter. You won't find one saying "I see the point, but people take it too far"--you won't get the "I see the point."
Saying "human nature being what it is ..." is one of my pet peeves. I see it as a conclusion looking for evidence, as opposed to critically examining the evidence and then drawing a conclusion. Pushing an idea to a "hyperlogical endpoint" might be human nature, but where's the objective evidence that unequivocally demonstrates that it's not human nurture?
That might seem like splitting hairs, but it really matters. We're stuck with human nature. What is learned can unlearned.
For the record, my guess is it's learned -- a symptom of the tendency to carelessly impose one's opinions on others, which in turn is a symptom of living in a very large and socially-isolated society.
Human nature is remarkably complicated. Every society has some people who gamble, some people who overuse drugs, and some people who are sexually promiscuous... but you will rarely, if ever, find a society where *everyone* does that stuff. Extremist political views also seem to exist everywhere, but seldom command majorities. It's an interesting question, how human nature produces some tendencies that seem to be always there but usually in the minority!
Natural selection. When extreme position become dominant, they cause the society ro fall apart. So only societies that evolved mechanisms to limit extremism survive.
It's human nature to form tribes or groups - actually it's the nature of social animals - group are always competing against each other. Of course religion is one of the things that institutionalizes this. There has never been a major religious movement that has not split up into competing factions. In the South racism was institutionalized - made part of the law. Then the conservative media makes money from stoking group conflicts.
Rationality says that people are better off if the cooperate, but it is always fighting against institutionalized and commercialize group conflict.
This statement is an example of what I understand "woke" to mean:
https://cccc.ncte.org/cccc/demand-for-black-linguistic-justice
From that statement (written by a group of PHDs):
"We DEMAND that:
*teachers stop using academic language and standard English as the accepted communicative norm, which reflects White Mainstream English!
*teachers stop teaching Black students to code-switch! Instead, we must teach Black students about anti-Black linguistic racism and white linguistic supremacy!
*political discussions and praxis center Black Language as teacher-researcher activism for classrooms and communities!
*teachers develop and teach Black Linguistic Consciousness that works to decolonize the mind (and/or) language, unlearn white supremacy, and unravel anti-Black linguistic racism!"
This is certainly one of the most explicit calls for the complete politicization of education that I personally have ever seen.
And, here's the thing: there are actually some issues there that are interesting and could be debated. What, exactly, is the role of a given dialect in the learning of a standard or "mainstream" form of English? Fine, let's talk about that ...
But, as the very title of that statements explicitly announces, none of its authors are ready, willing, or perhaps even able to engage in any sort of discussion at all. They are quite literally DEMANDING everything they want, every way they want it, immediately. And if one tries to disagree, the text of the statement already makes clear that any possible opposition is racist. In other words, people who so much as attempt to express a doubt are not just wrong, they're evil.
This, to me, is ideological extremism in an unusually pure and unfiltered form. And that's wokeness. Yes, they start with a legitimate topic; but they end, unfortunately, on an insistence on their own views and a condemnation on all who dare to dissent.
That is not an example of "woke" from my (moderately liberal) perspective. It is, however, what the Right would have us believe is rampant among Democrats and meant for America at large, not just within a specific academic discipline.
That statement by an academic organization is revolutionary, to be sure (within their discipline), but that doesn't make it "ideological extremism," as in outside of acceptable norms, pushing a narrow, radical agenda on society as a whole. The Taliban is extreme. Greenpeace is extreme. The Texas GOP is extreme. This is an aspirational manifesto covering a narrow realm of activity. By pointing to it as an example of progressive "wokeness" you are playing into the Tucker Right's hands.
The Left needs to deal with its own problems;
And we need to face the fact that we have our own extremist elements.
The fact that Fox News sometimes makes a big deal out of the Left’s extremist elements doesn’t mean that those elements don’t exist.
And looking at a statement like the one I posted and refusing to recognize it as a problem is absurd.
From the perspective of Liberalism, not from the perspective of Fox News, the statement above is an egregious assault on our free and open society.
The writers of that document are explicitly calling for an end to higher education as open inquiry;
Instead, they are literally and explicitly stating that higher education must become a platform for leftist indoctrination.
It’s extremely unfortunate; but yes: elements on the far left really do sometimes match the alarmist descriptions provided by the likes of Fox News.
And acknowledging that reality does not play into the hands of Fox News; rather,
Ignoring that reality, as you are trying to do, is what plays into the hands of Fox News.
We should be able to recognize and call out the excesses of our own side. If we can’t or won’t do that, we leave ourselves open to attack on issues that we failed to address ourselves.
If you've never encountered this kind of left extremism first hand, it's easy and convenient to try to deny that it exists, that it's all a phantom of the fevered conservative imagination. If I had never encountered it, I might well believe the same, given how little credibility conservatives have these days after many years of running a media complex that never bothers to check facts.
But I have encountered it. It exists. And it is appalling. The Democratic Party and the American left as a whole absolutely need to stand up to the crazies among us. And the first step to solving any problem is to admit that you have a problem.
As I noted earlier, there's a fine line between "woke" and "stupid" and it's easy to cross that line.
"Woke"came from Lead Belly's advice at the end of his song Scottsboro Boys recorded in 1938 where he says "stay woke keep your eyes open". Still perfectly relevant for Black people staying alive but now appropriated for whatever point of view is being peddled. It means whatever you want it to.
I do not think it's fair to say that conservative aversion to the term woke "is a dislike of anything that suggests white people sometimes act badly." Everyone acts badly and some people act badly almost all of the time, regardless of their race.
The dislike is most commonly directed against the political cant underlying the term for many who celebrate it. Conservatives dislike woke ideology when it stands for: all white people are irredeemably racist; only white people can be racist; color-blindness is racist; and, white people should keep their views on the subject of race to themselves if those views are not 100% consistent with those of the 1619 Project and Ibram X. Kendi. And you don't have to cherry-pick the most extreme forms of woke ideology as the basis for your dislike. Woke ideology occupies the commanding heights of our society in 2022, and that's not a good thing, in my opinion.
Every accusation in your second paragraph is a strawman that doesn't exist in any mainstream discussion from the left on woke.
People who go around calling everyone who disagrees with them a racist absolutely do exist, I'm afraid. If you haven't run into them I hope you don't have to.
Oh please, I've worked for a couple of the Big 5 tech companies, and you do get a pretty big blast about the prevalence of white supremacy in mandatory training. Even in a company where the majority of people are not white, including the CEO.
We're apparently not very good at white supremacy any more.
I largely agree with your characterization of what wokeness is. But I think you would benefit from being more specific about what you mean by "commanding heights". It's become worryingly influential in academia, and from there it's spread to some parts of the entertainment industry, and a lot of employers are having a fad for cringeworthy DEI trainings. But it seems to me that the influence is much more limited in government, given that woke candidates are unelectable in most places. Even winning Democratic primary races is often a challenge for them, because most of the D base actually isn't woke.
As with any other social justice concept, it's easy to cross the fine line between "woke" and "stupid". However, the stupid notwithstanding, to be anti-woke is, simply enough, to be a bigot.
IMO, woke is a conservative code used to denigrate progressives and it's actually a camouflaging of Cleek's Law that conservatives have unwittingly misunderstood.
Thanks! I have learned a new phrase. Just in case any of you haven't yet learned it,
From everybodyswiki.com.