Comment by mseepgood

The whole article is an opinion piece that is judging a group of people. I don't think most people would agree with your definition.

And besides, the definition of "woke" is a secondary issue anyway, the article's purpose isn't to propose a definition of woke, it's to judge and criticize people who behave a certain way, and he's done an adequate job IMO of describing the behaviors he's criticizing.

"Wokeness" itself implies taking some form of (performative) action. You can be aware of social injustice existing and not be "woke", in my opinion at least.

> The actual meaning of "wokeness" is an "awareness of the existence of social injustice".

The actual meaning of "wokeness" is that it has several different meanings. For instancee, the first could be what you outlined:

1. an "awareness of the existence of social injustice"

And another, equally valid one (that comes about from the reaction to people who embraced the first meaning and proceeded to behave obnoxiously and gain lots of attention) is:

2. the obnoxious and doctrinaire enforcement of the values of the "social justice" subculture on the wider population through bullying tactics (e.g. social media pile ons)

etc.

Taking one as the "one true meaning" is almost always just a tactic to delegitimize an opponent (usually by the left, as they have more access prestigious institutions, but language is language and no authority can suppress new words and new senses of existing words).