The article you were pointed to contained far more information than that.
Choosing to treat that one sentence as a strict definition doesn't really hold up.
Your last sentence sound like a personal attack, which makes me think you aren't arguing in good faith.
Woke (/ˈwoʊk/ WOHK) is an English adjective meaning 'alert to racial prejudice and discrimination' that originated in African-American Vernacular English (AAVE).
Google says: adjective: woke; comparative adjective: woker; superlative adjective: wokest
alert to injustice in society, especially racism.
"we need to stay angry, and stay woke"
So, that seems to be the accepted defintion. I can't really copypasta the whole Wikipedia page now, can I.
The last sentence was not a personal attack, it was merely the logical conclusion his own appraisal of himself; "I am an anti-woke"
If you have an alterative defintion that would refute the conclusion then I'm all ears.
Let's say that I am a guy, attentive to social justice, noble. Then I am that same guy who reads about someone trying to talk bad about social justice, I converse with him (good), I start calling him names, want his head, want him banned and alienated (bad)
So this is an invite to go further than the definition and that point that you egregiously understood
We're having a converstion, but for you to make a valid point that people are doing these thing then you need to present examples.
You couldn't/wouldn't present an example of the newspaper wokeness that you suggest is happening.
Give me just one (your best) concrete example of this woke culture in action and you'll have made a point, otherwise this is all just angels dancing on the head of pin territory.
There is a whole section called "Woke as a pejorative term", also an earlier section states: "there is no single agreed-upon definition of woke".
The point is instead of interacting with the thread to find out the contextual meaning, you decided to settle one a definition simplistic enough to conclude "op is for racism/discrimination".
First, formal logical analysis of complex semantics (which that Wikipedia page implies is the case for the word "woke") doesn't work.
Even if it did, "anti-" can refer to any aspect of something; and since there is often no distinction between a-<something> and anti-<something>, this further illustrates why trying to guess the meaning of a word doesn't work.
> If you have an alterative defintion that would refute the conclusion then I'm all ears.
Given by wccrawford in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30349172
Which also calls into question your disingenuity:
> I'm just stuggling to see why being alert to racial prejudice and discrimination is bad thing
wccrawford pretty clearly explained it, but here you are reverting back to ignorance.