If their definition of democracy requires rights for all, then you can't be a democracy and not be "woke".
I certainly agree with that. Of course by that definition i am of course "woke" myself.
The woke are incapable of making important distinctions and treating people as individuals outside of such groups. Distinction is the basis of rationality. Equality requires that, and demands that individuals supercede groups in the application of law and opportunity.
That's why wokeness does not focus on individual equality, but group equity, putting the collective ahead of the individual and exiling individuals when they stand for themselves and not a given group. Democracy as Aristotle explained, is the majority ruling over the minority. In other words, mob rule. Democracy is only good when it is not ruling and making decisions that serve everyone, and not just the majority, equally. This he called a polity.
"The right kind of democracy, if you will, is a polity: An ideal democracy that governs for the interests of all, not just the leadership." https://fs.blog/aristotles-politics/
Your definition of "woke" is one that has been applied to a set of concerns, ideas and strategies from the outside. It is how those who wish to reject those concerns, defeat those ideas and strategies define it. You're quite welcome to do that - it's not as if this is the first time this has happened. But "woke" (an almost absurd term that seems rarely by anyone outside of the conservative right at this point) doesn't have anything to do with the way you define it to the people you actually consider "woke". I think that's worth reflecting on.
As for fears of the majority ruling over the minority, it's far from clear whether that is actually worse, given at least a reasonable legal system, than the minority ruling over the majority, a condition that one could make a reasonable case for defining the current political system in the USA.
I found it to to be the exact opposite. GP has written of the best descriptions of wokeness and gets to the core issue without beating about the bush.
It may get to your perception of the core issue. It does not get to the publically stated perspectives of the people to whom the term is generally actually applied.
Arguments need to be argued through merits, content and logic; not though ad-hominem attacks if my perception is wrong or right.
Have a look at the history of politics and pay special notion to those strands which centre around grouping people, whether that be "proletarians versus capitalists", "those_who_belong_to_my_religion versus those_who_do_not", "those of our nation versus those from elsewhere" and now this "those who belong to my identity group versus those who do not".
Also have a look what most of these group-centred ideologies have in common, namely the identification of a specific scapegoat group which is blamed for all the woes - including those caused by the application of the group-centred ideology - which beset the in-group. In Bolshevist Russia is was the Kulaks [1], in Nazi Germany it was the Jews, in theocratic Iran it is "the great Satan" (i.e. the USA and its allies) while in this new "woke" cult it is the "cis-gender heterosexual white man".
The problem with all these group-centred ideologies is that groups do not have a voice, only individuals posing as the group do. Those individuals can gain a lot of power and as such either tend to get corrupted or are drawn to the role of spokesperson because they already are corrupt. Group-centred thinking works well on a small scale - family, small neighbourhood, etc - but it often fails when the members of the group no longer personally can know each other since that makes it possible for the corrupt spokespeople to make their play.
But you’re arguing that wokeness, which focuses on the interests of minorities which are being oppressed by the majority, is in opposition to this goal?
Telling me your definition didn't actually add anything to what i said.