> I have yet to hear a coherent description of what "woke" even fucking means that doesn't ultimately dissolve into a pot-pourri of personal grievances.
Exactly - that's the entire point of a dogwhistle.
Exactly - that's the entire point of a dogwhistle.
To parent's point, the bullshit of the right's current definition of wokeness is that it's "things we don't like."
Which is about as useful as people calling something "problematic."
If there were firmer ideological underpining to the right's platform, I'd be willing to listen.
But currently, more words are spent complaining about and accusing others than talking about what they want to do.
> [woke is] using victimhood as the means to justify(?) their ephemeral power(?) in whatever context they deem fit?
Isn't that what the right is doing now?
I.e. we're victims, so we're justified in using our temporary political power to do whatever we want
But there isn't and will never be imo, as human behavior cannot be hard-categorized into easy to understand boxes. Just as a light example, look at the former D's that were appointed and confirmed by the current administration. Would you say they have accepted a level of the Right's conformity over their original/core beliefs?
Unfortunately (for the world) they're also contradictory.
And the administration doesn't seem capable of enunciating a coherent decision as to which guides its policy -- instead it's last-man-in-the-room-ism.
Whereas inversely, a true-to-life dictator XJP whom there is no perceived dissent within his congress or at minimum ever widely publicized or disseminated. Maybe this is the ideological stability you are looking for?