> Proof by Daily Mail headline, really? Do you think that's convincing to anyone?

Presumably the headlines are convincing to Daily Mail readers, of whom there are many.

However, the purpose of me using them is to seek examples of usage which doesn't match the other specified patterns; in this regard, "random large newspaper" should suffice regardless of my personal opinion of them being "should be in fiction section".

I could also have quoted newspapers being upset that the Church of England is "woke" for having gender-neutral pronouns for God, that Lego is "woke" for having a new range of disabled figurines, that the National Trust is "woke" for saying that Henry VIII was disabled in later life, or that Disney is "woke" because of their support for LGBT issues, but I (apparently incorrectly) assumed those examples would be enough.

> it has a very widely understood meaning.

"A" in the sense of exactly one, or at least one? Because I'm agreeing with the second, not the first.

Heck, this thread should be existence proof of there being more than one — if you reply to nothing else here, this one point is what I would ask you to focus on, because it's the most confusing to me. It's like all the people who say all Christians are the same before attacking (sometimes literally) other denominations, or all the Brexit campaigners who say the other Brexit campaigners are actually just Remainers because their vision for Brexit is one they don't like.

> You say this quote has nothing to do with race. From just a few sentences earlier in the article you're quoting:

What I said was:

> Here's another definition of "woke": […] But again, here's a completely different one, one that doesn't directly touch on race issues at all

Key words: "Definition" and "Directly".

And the article is behind a paywall, I got the quote from Wikipedia; do you expect most people using the term — not just people like me, who have seen this done a dozen times with various political clichés and are tired of watching fashions change, but also those who actively use the word to describe a behaviour they're supporting or opposing — to have read exhaustively all the source material before opining politically in public about if "woke" is good or bad, or using it themselves in a new sentence? Or even to pay attention to claims separated by more than a paragraph, especially as you yourself (this isn't to blame you, we're all like this) didn't do that with my words?

Different example of how language breaks away from original context: headlines defending serious professional misconduct by saying "they were just a few bad apples" as if the rest of that quotation fragment didn't exist.

Humans don't have the luxury of being able to mainline the entire internet like LLMs do, we skim and summarise, rhymes make things seem more true, all that kind of thing even before political tribalism turns this into a totem.

Those headlines you don't like? I'm sure I read somewhere that most people read only the headlines before commenting, and most of those who read more only read the first paragraph.

> The reality is that the word woke is a very clear ideology with well understood roots in Marxist oppressor/oppressed worldviews

I've read the Communist Manifesto and I call BS on that, and not just because of the 80 year gap between Das Kapital and Lead Belly. The closest connection I see between them is their incoherence in modern usage, specifically by those who have learned to use ["woke", "communist"] as generic insults. The idea of oppressor/oppressed worldviews goes back to at least Exodus, and that's an equally un-apt comparison.

Oh hey, "politically correct", as I recall, that was originally the right trying to demonise the left for supporting equality by memetic comparison to Soviet political officers…