> What do you think is wrong with the belief that there are systemic injustices in American society that should be addressed?
Nothing. What's wrong here is you making a sleight of hand (also known as "Motte-and-bailey"): whatever someone said in a court, under oath or not, about the definition of a word, has zero relevance to what the word means in regular conversation. It has even less authority than a dictionary, which tries to be generally descriptive, because it's just making an operational definition for the purposes of the court case.
I imagine you understand perfectly well the meaning of "woke" GP used, and you surely realize it is close to how this word is understood in general by those who don't subscribe to this particular group of ideologies - otherwise you wouldn't have to try and substitute an alternative meaning, from some court case no less, that just happens to be maximally inoffensive and agreeable, and also very much not the thing people are talking about.
> I imagine you understand perfectly well the meaning of "woke" GP used, and you surely realize it is close to how this word is understood in general by those who don't subscribe to this particular group of ideologies
To the best of my understanding, "woke" is now used by people to signal pretty much anything that they don't agree with. It's more frequently used when the subject matter is a black, gay, trans, women, or minority rights. But it's current usage is so incredibly broad, it is pretty much meaningless beyond "liberal nonsense I don't approve of". Hell even M&Ms, sidewalks being shoveled before roads, and not wanting to expose your kids to gas fumes (I can keep going with dozens of additional absurd things...) are all now called "woke".
Do you have a better definition than the one above? Because the fact that you fail to offer a counter-definition is pretty damn telling.
I'd just as well say "jimbokum"'s post has zero relevance to what the word means in conversation.
Which is not to say he wasn't making a worthwhile observation - that those who complain the loudest about wokeism/cancel culture arguably share quite a bit in common with those they perceive as being the primary promoters. Certainly it's always struck me that a lot people on both sides of the debate really are exceedingly thin-skinned (or at least worry excessively that those they feel they're trying to protect are thin-skinned).
Nothing. What's wrong here is you making a sleight of hand (also known as "Motte-and-bailey"): whatever someone said in a court, under oath or not, about the definition of a word, has zero relevance to what the word means in regular conversation. It has even less authority than a dictionary, which tries to be generally descriptive, because it's just making an operational definition for the purposes of the court case.
I imagine you understand perfectly well the meaning of "woke" GP used, and you surely realize it is close to how this word is understood in general by those who don't subscribe to this particular group of ideologies - otherwise you wouldn't have to try and substitute an alternative meaning, from some court case no less, that just happens to be maximally inoffensive and agreeable, and also very much not the thing people are talking about.