Do you think the battle for legalized gay marriage all those years before Obergefell was "woke"? Do you think people who support gay marriage now are "woke" or it an issue that has become totally mainstream?

I would agree that the prison service in the UK has got this wrong a couple of times; like the high-profile case of the the rapist who "transitioned" after being convicted. — Mijin

But once you say that a biological man can't be with females (in this case, prisons), aren't you opening the door to banning men from other female-only areas?

But you can see we're looking at probably 8x the number v trans women — AmadeusD

There are far more than 8 times the number of ciswomen versus transwomen though. And if the number of transwomen killed is very low in Europe (as opposed to just a dearth of reporting figures; how many police forces even keep that data?), that's great. As your cite says though, the figure is much higher in the US, which has a lower population than Europe and is ahead of the curve in demonizing trans.

So, in total, it's actually a good argument for why we should be more tolerant and not become like the US.

Do the have an active SRY gene? You've asked the wrong question. — AmadeusD

Is that how human biologists define gender? Do you think that society would regard even someone capable of getting pregnant as male if they have that gene?

But once you say that a biological man can't be with females (in this case, prisons), aren't you opening the door to banning men from other female-only areas? — RogueAI

Firstly, prisons are a special case as:
1) We're talking about a population that has in many cases carried out violence towards women. Yes, a person can lose their right to be around women, at least until we have a chance to rehabilitate them. Prison is inherently about losing rights, it doesn't entail anything about the outside world.

2) Part of the concept of prison is that it's not just a holiday home where people are getting laid, as would be the case if prisons became unisex. That's part of the justification for separating the sexes. Now, the obvious counter-argument, is that homosexual sex happens in prisons, but of course, ideally that wouldn't either. The fact that we don't police prisons adequately in some cases is not an argument for giving up entirely and making it essentially impossible.

Secondly, let me be clear: I am not saying transwomen should be prevented from being in women's prison either. I think it's complex and necessarily case-by-case. I think it would be an injustice if a transwoman who looks cisgender female, and has committed a non-violent crime, is put in a men's prison where she is likely to be a frequent target.

one does not “decide” to be an activist in a fully autonomous, intentional sense. — Number2018

a need …or a desire, draws one into it — Number2018

Although I don’t disagree we are drawn and pushed, I still think once in a while, we make a true choice, a fully responsible act.

The very process of trying to awaken is a stripping away of forces that draw us and push us. At some point, I believe we know enough to sit atop the wave that is society and become an individual, and even guide society for brief moments. Freedom is that goal.

So I don’t know why you are saying one never decides to be an activist. I think for some, we do decide, and it is those we need to discusss.

desire is never pre-social. It does not originate from a pure, inner core of the individual, but is always produced within and through social assemblages. — Number2018

Again, I am not disagreeing the general picture that creates/ I see what you are describing too. But in that same picture, I still see self-identifiable desire as a possibility. So I disagree “desire is NEVER pre-social.” Sometimes, desire reveals the true subject in its solitude. That’s what true desire creates - the finite, the particular, or the part that remains unlike the whole, waiting to be actualized (desire that is acted upon).

And what happens is that if a desire EVER actually is pre-social (or extra-social), than such true desires are a new animal, not what you are describing. Such desires are a true novelty and new identity, in addition to all of aspects of our identities that involve social construction.

So I think I have to disagree with Deluze. We need to recognize the space, the vacuum, created clear as day that becomes filled only by the truly novel self. Perhaps this self does not “originate from a pure, inner core”, but once it declares itself, it is claimed and staked out and becomes one’s inner core (or at least “core” becomes something to continue clarifying…)

..,one’s ideology resonates with the subject’s unconscious investments, shaped by one’s socio-aesthetic milieu. — Number2018

People in very similar social-aesthetic milieu’s can go very different directions. Are we starting to talk more about any activism, and not something particular to wokeness? “Unconscious” is not conscious intention. Likewise, one’s “milieu” is outside of and separate from the subject (woven together, but distinguishable). All of these outside forces shaping activist behavior, seems to build a lot of psychological room for a lack of responsibility and accountability. Is that what you are saying is a feature of wokeness? I don’t think I’m following you anymore. Are you saying that the drive toward woke activism (wherever it comes from) is a drive to shirk responsibility?

activism often operates as a displacement of desire. The radical energy that cannot confront capitalism — Number2018

That sounds irresponsible, or at least non- self-aware. Why can’t one confront capitalism, AND do what one desires?

activism may be both an expression of unconscious desire and an adaptive performative mechanism within the late capitalist subjectivity. — Number2018

I’m losing sight of how this is about wokeness. Instead of becoming an activist, one could become a used car and gasoline salesman as “an expression of unconscious desire and an adaptive performative mechanism within the late capitalist subjectivity.”

[woke is] critical theory or something with fairly obvious value — Baden

I don’t see the value as obvious, or at least the harm so overshadows any value I don’t see it.

Wish someone one would take up a defense of woke. Head on. What good is woke? This thread could use it.

To be honest, I imagine this the easiest litmus test for whether or not one is doctrinaire, woke or anti-woke. Have you read any books on the subject?

Has anyone tried to read woke? It's intolerable garbage. Judith Butler? Robin DiAngelo? Candy-ass X? — Jeremy Murray

I've only read anti-woke books like Cynical Theories by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay, Material Girls by Kathleen Stock, and really awful ones like Woke, Inc. (on a par with DiAngelo awfulness I imagine). Though I've read some woke-adjacent books like The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander.

That, again, ignores what matters here. I'm going to just leave it, because it seems like statistics aren't really working here.

Is that how human biologists define gender? Do you think that society would regard even someone capable of getting pregnant as male if they have that gene? — Mijin

They can't, as best as my knowledge goes. Any DsDs which occur after the activation of SRY result in an infertile female anatomy, if that develops. CAIS and 5a Reductase deficiency are examples. These people generally find out they are male (though, often not framed as such) when they go through puberty, or even later when they realise they have no fertility.

It is key to be clear about two things:
Sex determination
Sex differentiation

Differentiation is the non-binary aspect. We can talk about that all day long. But there is not a single human on this planet who is not male or female (though, I am aware of one published case study which was carried out in less-than-ideal circumstances and likely represents a lack of exploratory knowledge and resources as it was, i think, rural Africa - it is never cited for these reasons).

I don’t see the value as obvious — Fire Ologist

I think he's making hte point that the underlying concept of "review your structures for unfairness" is probably valuable. I think that's right, also.

Wish someone one would take up a defense of woke. Head on. What good is woke? This thread could use it. — Fire Ologist

I think Mijin is giving it a good go, to be honest. The stats are an issue, but they're trying to make points about protections where we see harms. You say the harm outweighs the benefit, but conceptually I don't think that's right. Its like religion - the priests are hte problem.

one’s ideology resonates with the subject’s unconscious investments, shaped by one’s socio-aesthetic milieu.
— Number2018

People in very similar social-aesthetic milieu’s can go very different directions. Are we starting to talk more about any activism, and not something particular to wokeness? “Unconscious” is not conscious intention. Likewise, one’s “milieu” is outside of and separate from the subject (woven together, but distinguishable). All of these outside forces shaping activist behavior, seems to build a lot of psychological room for a lack of responsibility and accountability. Is that what you are saying is a feature of wokeness? I don’t think I’m following you anymore. Are you saying that the drive toward woke activism (wherever it comes from) is a drive to shirk responsibility? — Fire Ologist

You're right to point out that people in similar environments don’t all make the same choices. But one doesn’t become a woke activist simply by making a clear, conscious decision. Often, something pulls a person in. It can be a sense of injustice, guilt, compassion, or even the feeling of being on the “right side.”
These feelings aren’t just the result of rational deliberation. They come from how one is shaped by their environment, as well as by unconscious needs for recognition, and belonging. So, it's not accurate to say that people become woke to “avoid responsibility.” Rather, wokeness often stems from unconscious motivations that are more complex than we usually admit.
Let’s take Žižek’s critique, for example.

Zizek discusses the obsession with public confessions, guilt, and self-humiliation. This is one of key features of woke discourse. He calls this a “victimhood culture.” Individuals often describe themselves not as victims but as complicit or privileged (even as “predators”). Žižek argues that this act of self-denunciation becomes a way to gain moral legitimacy. By confessing guilt, they position themselves within a “victimhood culture,” where acknowledging one's wrongdoing paradoxically grants a kind of moral authority. But Žižek points that this self-denial doesn’t cancel privilege. Instead, it transforms and maintains it. By claiming the position of the morally wounded or perpetually self-critical subject, the woke individual asserts a universal moral authority, one that is difficult to challenge. For Žižek, the 'woke' individual is not simply manipulated or programmed; rather, their position is often shielded from rational critique because it satisfies unconscious desires for moral legitimacy and identity. In this thread, you and other posters noted that it's often difficult to maintain a dialogue or structured discourse with 'woke' individuals. They appear to be convinced from the outset of the righteousness of their moral or ideological stance. How would you explain this phenomenon in a way that differs from Žižek’s interpretation?

They can't, as best as my knowledge goes. — AmadeusD

"As best as my knowledge goes" is critical here.
IANA expert on human biology (well a bit of neuroscience, but that's not so useful here). So we should defer to those who are, right? Instead of going by our gut, or whatever is the moral panic of the day.

I don't think you understand what many of the phrases being used in this exchange mean.

My knowledge is based on the scientific explication of these conditions, consistent (over years) reviews of literature and plenty of rather terse challenges over that time. I am not a random person giving you my gut feeling. That is extremely disrespectful and fairly predictable in terms of a 'woke' response to facts. This is why the phrase 'facts don't care about your feelings' comes up (not a Shapiro fan particularly, i'm just noting this exact thing for the context we're in calls for it).

One does not need to be an expert to understand scientific positions and read papers. You are more than welcome to reject my positions, but I suggest if all you have is questioning me this is a form of poisoning the well, and doesn't touch the validity or accuracy of my positions.

Aside from this, humans have inbuilt expertise of certain kinds - we are more than 95% accurate in detected sex from facial features alone. Some sources show near-100% accuracy. This isn't specific to your query, but it shows that being a scientist isn't required for understanding sex and sex determination. SRY is the benchmark biologists use.

\

And from even just the Wiki page on SRY:



Or Sex Determination:



This can be hard to quite grasp - but it is obvious that SRY is hte determining factor. This is because you can have different arrays of chromosomal material, and be either male or female... depending on whether SRY was activated, present, or in some other way, aberrant to the point of non-activation in the subsequent cascade of sex differentiation.

So you're just going to double-down and say that you can analyze the data better than people who do this professionally? Better than the people who wrote the papers?

In terms of using the SRY gene as the ultimate determinator, firstly your own cite indicates that that doesn't work in all cases, pointing out that mutations in that gene can lead to disorders of sex development i.e. the very thing we're talking about with intersex. Furthermore, it's just not practical; are we saying that if we find someone who looks cisfemale, and may have even lived her whole life as a woman, we must treat her as a man, insist she goes to men's toilets because of a DNA test?

How would you explain this phenomenon in a way that differs from Žižek’s interpretation? — Number2018

Nietzsche's master/slave morality.

---

Speaking of socio-aesthetic milieus, there was a recent dustup in the culture war over the logo redesign for a restaurant chain. Trump Jr. led the anti-woke charge against Cracker Barrel and Trump Sr. finished it, damaging the brand and forcing them to abandon their rebranding efforts.

It might be noted that rebranding of this kind is a common practice in the evolution of a brand. It's sometimes called logo simplification or brand minimalism, and the basic logic of it simply that brand equity allows simplicity — the more familiar the brand, the less it needs to say visually. A good literally iconic example of this is the Apple logo. When the brand was new the logo was a highly detailed illustration of Isaac Newton under a tree.

What's remarkable about this is that the anti-woke mob was led by the heads of MAGA, and that the rebrand apparently had nothing to do with wokeness.

I think it would be an injustice if a transwoman who looks cisgender female, and has committed a non-violent crime, is put in a men's prison where she is likely to be a frequent target. — Mijin

That's a good point.

They appear to be convinced from the outset of the righteousness of their moral or ideological stance. How would you explain this phenomenon in a way that differs from Žižek’s interpretation? — Number2018

I would offer a slight twist on the subject.

The woke category that characterizes themselves as 'the oppressed victims' are absolutely shirking responsibility; they blame history, they blame the system, they blame other people's faults and "unconscious biases", etc.

This category exhibits something that I would almost consider a collective inferiority complex, which I believe stems from their own, unconscious rejection of their historical or cultural identity. That is then projected on society.

When one reduces one's own historical and/or cultural identity to "subservience to patriarchy", "slavery", etc. the 'other side of the mirror' is that one is indirectly admitting to one's own inferiority. Hence, observing the woke is like watching a dog chase its own tail.

So you're just going to double-down and say that you can analyze the data better than people who do this professionally? Better than the people who wrote the papers? — Mijin

No, i'm going to explain why this is a fallacy and that you are wrong, given that you can't present a single piece of information which goes against that which i've cited, in several places, to create a coherent narrative based on scientific information, and not my emotional response to uncomfortable realities. That you are ignoring all of htis isn't not my issue, unfortunately. I have given you the date. Not my interpretation.

In terms of using the SRY gene as the ultimate determinator, firstly your own cite indicates that that doesn't work in all cases, pointing out that mutations in that gene can lead to disorders of sex development i.e. the very thing we're talking about with intersex. — Mijin

You are clearly not reading anything I have presented. THe SRY gene determines whether you are male or female. That's the end of that part of hte discussion.

During sexual differentiation your phenotype can be aberrant. This does not, and cannot, change your sex. You are either not listening, or trolling me here. There are precisely zero humans who are not male or female. You have not even tried to claim otherwise.

Furthermore, it's just not practical; are we saying that if we find someone who looks cisfemale, and may have even lived her whole life as a woman, we must treat her as a man, insist she goes to men's toilets because of a DNA test? — Mijin

I've not said anything at all about a DNA test. If you could ask a non-loaded question on the back of a fairly confused response to some biologically crucial information, I would be happy to treat hte "what we should do" type questions in good faith.

You are clearly not reading anything I have presented. THe SRY gene determines whether you are male or female. That's the end of that part of hte discussion.

During sexual differentiation your phenotype can be aberrant — AmadeusD

No it isn't the end of the discussion. Your own cite's exact words are:

"SRY is an intronless sex-determining gene on the Y chromosome. Mutations in this gene lead to a range of disorders of sex development"

(emphasis added)

I've not said anything at all about a DNA test. If you could ask a non-loaded question on the back of a fairly confused response to some biologically crucial information, I would be happy to treat hte "what we should do" type questions in good faith. — AmadeusD

I didn't say you had, I was saying it's the obvious implication of using SRY as the determinator of gender in society. If it's the wrong implication, then please explain why so, and also answer the actual question. Instead of, frankly, using indignation as an excuse.

When one reduces one's own historical and/or cultural identity to "subservience to patriarchy", "slavery", etc. the 'other side of the mirror' is that one is indirectly admitting to one's own inferiority. Hence, observing the woke is like watching a dog chase its own tail. — Tzeentch

This doesn't address how "one's wrongdoing paradoxically grants a kind of moral authority."

Žižek underscores the point that morality is power in disguise. The scenario is what Nietzsche calls the “ascetic ideal” — a way of dominating life by turning life-denying values like humility into a source of authority, powerful not in spite of humility but because of it.

"SRY is an intronless sex-determining gene on the Y chromosome. Mutations in this gene lead to a range of disorders of sex development" — Mijin

In differentiation, yes. I have explained that quite clearly too. Those aberrations don't change your sex. They lead to aberrant phenotype and sometimes (well, mostly) infertility. Again, you need to keep determination and differentiation separate. They aren't the same process, nor do they result in the same "facts" about the individual. I hope that with this clear, its less important to you that sex is a binary. I can't see why its important to argue otherwise for reasons both that it is quite biologically clear what's going on, and that I can't see any social/political benefit to ignoring that reality. Same with plenty of other issues like racial statistics too, but here it seems far more important given half the population is "at stake" if I want to be dramatic.

I didn't say you had, I was saying it's the obvious implication of using SRY as the determinator of gender in society. If it's the wrong implication, then please explain why so, and also answer the actual question. Instead of, frankly, using indignation as an excuse. — Mijin

I am indignant at your continued non-acceptance of facts I present, and continuously confusing concepts I've been at pains to delineate for your benefit. I am justified. If you appear to not be reading things I'm typing, I will care given we're trying to have a discussion.

I responded that way because your implication was a moral one. It isn't appropriate here. We're not discussing "what to do". That's why i asked for a good faith version of a similar consideration.

Humans are (in some studies) next-to-100% accurate in telling sex from facial features alone. What we need to do is trust that people will not lie about their sex. If that's a concern, then perhaps we do need testing. But that's not my position. My position is that we separate almost all private spaces by sex (for almost all of history). That is right. We should continue to do so. We understood there were bad actors before 2010 and almost every male weasling their way into a female space was promptly dealt with.

More males in female spaces is a bad idea. That's the headline. This isn't controversial. I don't care how people identify for this purpose. I only care how people identify when it comes to my personal interactiosn with them, and I am not obliged to affirm or participate in an identity. I don't expect that for myself.

Žižek underscores the point that morality is power in disguise. — praxis

I don't disagree with Zizek or Nietzsche there, but I do believe the group that classifies themselves as "the victims" are doing so out of a sincere (though misguided) bid for self-validation. Resentment and a desire for revenge (and a corresponding desire for power) are a part of that.

Then there's the grifters, the profiteurs and politicians who jump on this bandwagon; they see emotionally vulnerable people as an opportunity for profit.

For them morality really is power.

The emotionally vulnerable are just being exploited and led in destructive circles, because the grift depends on them not finding a proper cure.

In differentiation, yes. I have explained that quite clearly too. Those aberrations don't change your sex. — AmadeusD

Once again, this statement of faith. But the problem is you've been hoist by your own petard.
Your claim was that sex is binary because of the SRY gene (never mind that biologists do not define gender this way).

But, oh look -- there are more than 2 observed genotypes for that gene. By your logic, we would have to concede that either there are more than 2 sexes, or that some people do not cleanly fit into one of the two most common ones. Unless we're going to engage in special pleading?

Humans are (in some studies) next-to-100% accurate in telling sex from facial features alone. What we need to do is trust that people will not lie about their sex. If that's a concern, then perhaps we do need testing. But that's not my position. My position is that we separate almost all private spaces by sex (for almost all of history). That is right. We should continue to do so. We understood there were bad actors before 2010 and almost every male weasling their way into a female space was promptly dealt with.

More males in female spaces is a bad idea. That's the headline. This isn't controversial. — AmadeusD

Firstly "next to 100%" is a red herring, because trans is rare and intersex is rare.

Secondly though, the point I was putting to you was that some people with the "male" SRY gene might look cisfemale and even have lived their lives assuming they were women (e.g. those with AIS). They might be married to a heterosexual male.
But, if we go with SRY gene as the determinator of strictly binary sex, then we are forced to consider them male and insist they go to men's bathrooms, men's prisons etc.

If, on the other hand, the SRY gene isn't the ultimate designator here, then that's the end of your argument. Because you're agreeing with me and the scientific consensus, that while most people can be trivially placed in a male or female bucket, there are special cases.

Which is it?

The emotionally vulnerable are just being exploited and led in destructive circles, because the grift depends on them not finding a proper cure. — Tzeentch

What is the proper cure?

Therapy.

People who showcase an unhealthy obsession with things in the past that they have little to no connection to, are often running away from their problems in the present.

The same basic power dynamics exist in religion. Though he presents it with a joke, Žižek makes a direct comparison between Rabbis and wokesters. Do you think the religious need therapy also?

A fair few of them, sure.

So, it's not accurate to say that people become woke to “avoid responsibility.” Rather, wokeness often stems from unconscious motivations that are more complex than we usually admit. — Number2018

Yes, but if these motivations are unconscious, which is what you are saying, then aren’t we talking about ‘motivations’ now, and not the thing at hand, wokeness? The unconscious motivation for being woke is one thing; what makes it “woke”, head on, woke qua wokeness, is another thing.

I’m not saying we don’t have to talk about motivations and unconscious motivations, but we have to talk about how these motivate woke thinking and woke actions and woke activism, versus something else.

Woke is an activist control mechanism, not an actual philosophy.

So there is no point debating the philosophical underpinnings - the average wokist can't articulate them anyway. — Jeremy Murray

Hey Jeremy. Thanks for chiming in.

Activist control mechanism. I can picture the herding that often accompanies the woke - the control mechanics of it (and I’m interested in further thoughts about how a shepherd can use wokeness to control the activist); but I also see an essence to wokeism, a philosophical underpinning, a what it is to be woke. There is a philosophy in there. It’s basically post-modernist mental acrobatics applied to hurting those in power (really, white men) (with no concern for who is thereby helped, and no concern for why someone might have this power)

And I don’t think you are really saying there isn’t a woke philosophy at all. You may just be recognizing that the woke themselves never provide much philosophical support for what they believe and say, and do.

I have a few theories about why the philosophy of woke is never directly discussed:

1. It’s unwoke to define something clearly - definition itself is an oppression. A well articulated principle is like authoritarian law, and tyranny. So if the woke clearly define “woke” they simultaneously perform a demonstration in anti-woke behavior. The minute something becomes defined clearly, it becomes institutionalized in a sense, so if that thing is “wokeness” and wokeness is supposed to be anti-institution, then the definition itself must be incoherent. So they can’t bother with definitions. Like “what is a woman?” If you even ask that question you are probably unwoke. (They only define those they want to dominate and impose absolute changes upon, like white men, or patriarchy.)

2. Woke debate tactics are to wait for the opponent to make an assertion, and attack and deconstruct that. They don’t usually build the position or assert the claim; instead, they take down opposing claims. So for the woke to say ‘what it is to be woke’ is for them to create a target for shredding and deconstructing, because taking other things down is what they do best, not building something new, or defending it from deconstruction.

3. The woke, the masters of “critical theory” never self-reflect, because they have already decided their position is obviously superior, common sense, morally superior, rational, and most practical. Thinking woke lends itself to only sharing thoughts inside a bubble of like-minded workers. They already know that the only goal of securing the border is to keep out disfavored races. That’s it - and if you don’t understand that, you aren’t reasonable or even intelligent enough to be worth debating. There is no need to debate what is obvious to them. In short, wokeists are often (not always), among the least critical thinkers I’ve met. (This is obviously ironic - wokeism is supposed to be more aware, and it is supposed to be more aware by uncovering hidden bias - but they never ask themselves about their woke conclusions, totally sleeping on the many biases and prejudices that abound in their speech and actions.)

So I agree with you that there is no point debating. And this thread never really took off. The woke proponent is doing psychology when you ask a philosophical question, and doing epistemology when you ask an ethical question. Wokeness or any one issue is not dealt with head on. If any thread screamed for full-throated defense of wokeness, this one does; yet no one goes there.

People who showcase an unhealthy obsession with things in the past that they have little to no connection to, are often running away from their problems in the present. — Tzeentch

Maybe some people, but everyone who ever uses the expression “things are getting worse” is focused on the past in comparison with a present they see as worse than the past. So a blanket condemnation as “unhealthy obsession” of all conservative thinking shoots down along with it anyone who ever sees things are getting worse.

We are all conservative at times. Just as we are all liberal progressives at other times. There is no need to demonize finding good things in the past to emulate and to bring back, before things keep getting worse. Just as, for conservatives, there is no need to demonize tearing down any institutions (some need to be torn down) or to fear anything new and untested.

1. It’s unwoke to define something clearly - definition itself is an oppression. A well articulated principle is like authoritarian law, and tyranny. — Fire Ologist

2. Woke debate tactics are to wait for the opponent to make an assertion, and attack and deconstruct that. — Fire Ologist

3. The woke, the masters of “critical theory” never self-reflect, because they have already decided their position is obviously superior, common sense, morally superior, rational, and most practical. — Fire Ologist

Sorry but this is all such bollocks. A whole thread discussing the fine embroidery of the emperor's clothes. You can't even say Christmas any more!

Meanwhile, back in the real world, there's an authoritarian, and, yes, fascist* administration in the white house. Freedom of the press, of the judiciary and academia is all under threat. And in terms of rights, we've had due process, freedom of assembly and free speech all attacked as part of a move towards white christian nationalism.

Oh but the real problem is being forced to say there are 37 genders, a thing which hasn't happened.

* I don't use that word as a pejorative. Look up the definition. MAGA fits every part of it.

The latest anti-woke fascist move by the Trump administration is to deny trans their Second Amendment rights. Nevermind the fact that less than 0.1% of mass shooters are trans.

Right -- the vast majority are white males, usually of a conservative lean. Strange that no-one's proposed restrictions on that group.

Why not just:
1. Define woke.
2. Construct something new, propose good woke policy and practice
3. Self-reflect from the woke side of the equation and show where woke needs improvement - be critical of “critical theory” for just a bit.

?

Or just tell me what MAGA is, avoid discussing what woke is, and demonstrate the point I made.

Why not just:
1. Define woke. — Fire Ologist

I don't use the word, and I didn't make a thread about it. The only time I hear it now is in conservative media, why's it on me to guess what on earth they mean?

However, I don't want anyone to accuse me of dodging, so here's the definition:

Woke (adj) - Pejorative used in conservative media against any policy the author does like, has no consistent or coherent meaning. See "political correctness gone mad"

2. Construct something new, propose good woke policy and practice — Fire Ologist

In terms of diversity and equity policy, things were progressing well before it got weaponized. The idea of such policies is that eg the best candidate for a job might not be the white, male, able-bodied guy who looks like all the others and we should try to cast as wide a net as possible.

Thousands of companies have implemented such policies successfully. Right wing media though, tries to claim it's about hiring people who aren't qualified. And, in a country as large as the US, it's possible to cherry pick an example of a poorly implemented or constructed DEI policy.
However it's simply a lie that it's commonly implemented, let alone defined, that way.

3. Self-reflect from the woke side of the equation and show where woke needs improvement - be critical of “critical theory” for just a bit. — Fire Ologist

Good example.
No-one had even heard of CRT before Christopher Rufo made claims about it on conservative TV, as it's a college-level optional topic.

Almost immediately people were railing about CRT in elementary schools, because people are easily duped now, and have a desire to be outraged.