Snitching on your neighbors to the state secret police because they criticized the state is not a bottom-up movement. It is possible only when there is a coherent, centralized state agenda.
There are no woke police. There is no woke Stalin. The analogy is utterly inapplicable here.
> the real insulting words are never these that debated.
I'm curious about this, do you have some examples?
about the examples, if you would take extreme slurs against minorities, these are not used in a professional environment already so they are never these that are discussed
The words that are discussed are such that are established for a different connotation. that connotation is completely metaphorical and does not carry any real insult, yet some insist on literalizing those, or finding hidden meanings
Newspeak is actually a very similar approach to what’s going on currently because it removes words that allows communicating ideologically problematic concepts. What’s going on with the entire blacklist/whitelist issues is based on the assumption that removing a word that describes a perceived injustice will remove that injustice from the world. It is an approach that is completely blind to the real meaning a word has taken, and tries to folk etymologically hack a different interpretation. This is why the real insulting words are never these that debated.
Both Newspeak and "rightspeak" think that language creates reality rather than the other way around