[flagged]
I think it may be better to say that the author has an agenda or is co-opting real issues, but I can't think of an elegant way to phrase that.
I don't really agree with the general argument, though. I don't think painting this as an "AI Slop" issue is fair. Online communities are quicker (and quieter!) when dismissing obvious AI Slop than when dismissing legitimate discourse that looks like AI, or was cleaned-up with AI, or even it just uses Em––Dashes. Perhaps the excusable usage is marking content as machine-translated, which of course causes other disadvantages for the poster. But of course that's just one point of view and communities I don’t go to might be 100% different!
Seems to be very hard to realize that in the US. But from the outside, both ends are batshit insane.
https://paulgraham.com/woke.html
Now, some alt right are acting like wokeness is not in retreat, and constitutes some kind of large and growing threat, so that aligning against it is a major priority.
However, that doesn't mean everyone who uses the word is partaking in an alt right anti-woke frenzy.
Saying “woke” in any context to attack a particular idea or ideology makes you _sound_ like your engaging in American culture war bullshit.
I.e. implying you should probably stop doing that, in the name of social justice.
That is absurdly woke, by any objective measure. The word woke is being used accurately.
By the way, for most people, it should be a compliment to have their writing compared to AI, because "AI could have written that" means that it the writing has good grammar and spelling, and usually makes some kind of coherent point.
I happen like the above article by Graham; it's very observant. I feel that he nails almost everything in it, and handles the subject in an different way from other authors.