The definition of 'woke' would have been thought up by someone who is woke; so only the woke will accept it. To normal people, the definition of a woke person is, 'nasty pasty'.

There is no such animal as a "reforming conservative". There is no description for a one-off like Everald Compton. However, he does deserve marks for his condemnation of the cancel culture, even though he doesn't realise that they are also wokists of the first order.

I've read elsewhere that cancel culture is mainly something people aim at those from their own side of politics who they consider to have betrayed them. Would anyone like me to find the URL?

______________________________________________________________________________

ttbn,
Nasty pasty? Is that one with mushrooms in it?

I think Everald's definition of 'woke' is correct. But some people try to conflate wokeness with political correctness. Mostly it's the most PC and most anti-PC cohorts who do so. But there's a huge fundamental difference: wokeness is tolerant, whereas political correctness is intolerant.

And of course there's such a thing as a "reforming conservative". Not all conservatives are happy with the status quo. They're cautious, but they don't instinctively reject everything.

Seems to me to be a particularly naive definition of woke from Google.

Where did you go wrong you ask. Well mate, when you left Linville.

Levity aside, you strike as a moderate who is fiscally conservate and socially progressive. I too would never join a political party. Who wants to put their mind in a box and think what you are told to think.

That said, I have ambitions to start one, i.e., the nuclear power/green energy party. And that would take money I don't have!

But, with that as a goal, bring down power prices to just 3 cents PKWH and kill inflation in its tracks, and very doable, and still make a 200% profit! MSR thorium!

People joining would need to be able to pass a lie detector test on joining, and as they agree to the party's platform as fair dinkum believers.

That's not to say they need to put their mind in a box but to be likeminded thinkers able to add any input that would improve policy and election prospects.

And gain enough support to be able to win a majority in both houses to guarantee policy outcomes and donations as crowd funding! So, we unlike the others aren't owned by those with private policy agendas.

The coal lobby, I believe, basically owns all current major labor and coalition parties. And the anti-nuclear greens have an anti-development hidden agenda that would all but take us back to the Middle Ages.
Alan B.

Introspection is a grand virtue.

Keep it up, Everald, don't jump to quick conclusions.

When people claim to be "woke" they assume that they are achieving "Awake to the needs of others, well informed, thoughtful, compassionate, humble, kind, and eager to make the world a better place for all people."

But far more often they are self entitled, intolerant and sanctimonious.

Unfortunately ,“woke” is a term that means very different things to those who use it as a self-description and those who use it as an insult.

As Everard indicates, it has positive associations with kindness and sensitivity, especially towards minorities and the disadvantaged. It draws attention to cultural blind spots and systemic failings that perpetuate prejudice and underprivilege. It strives to make the world a better place.

But it is also increasing associated with strident intolerance towards those who have different political opinions; a highly negative perception of western culture, values, and history; performative virtue signalling by corporations and other organisations; and the sneering, self-righteous elitism of those who consider themselves “awake” to social realities most of us don’t recognise.

I would hope to fit Everard’s definition of “woke”, but it’s not a self-description I’d use.

Perhaps most importantly, if people are criticising him for being “woke”, he should understand that they are not using the term in its positive sense. Rather than sidestepping their concerns by taking the label as a compliment, he might do better to engage with the substance of their issues.

I think Everald's definition is a little perverse. I did a bit of digging around and most dictionaries appear to define it in terms of relationship to issues like race and gender. This site had a useful list of examples http://helpfulprofessor.com/woke-examples/.

I don't think left and right use it in ways that have different meanings. The left valorises those meanings, and the right despises them. But I think most of us are sensitive to questions of race or gender, the issue is what else you are sensitive to, and whether you apply those sensitivities narrowly or broadly.

For example, I'm concerned about race, but I don't support positive discrimination, but I would support measures that help people from all disadvantaged groups to get up to speed with what is required. Same with gender.

And I don't support measures that try to represent some particular minority within certain industries in proportion to their representation in the population at large. That is absurd, given the broad tendencies within, in particular, gender. Women are, on average, more caring than men, and you would expect them to be over-represented in the caring industries. Likewise men are more risk tolerant and you would expect them to be over-represented in dangerous industries.

So my personal objection to the woke is that they ignore reality in favour of a fantasy of how things ought to be for their favoured minorities. And that they treat people as members of groups, rather than individuals.

Common 'decency' used to do the trick. Most people were decent - and still are - and they never needed, and still don't need, an artificially coined word to signal their virtue, and present themselves as better than others.

What Rhain says.
Alan B.

Woke lite…God save us from idiots.

ttbn, I believe woke and common decency are more or less the same thing. And as DD says those practice common decency (woke) are idiots!
Alan B.