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.