I get your point. But politicians are not lone individuals; they are effectively teams. They have all sorts of people thinking and speaking for them. This is about a topic where most of the anti-"woke" crowd will absolutely never given an answer, because to answer accurately about it gives the game away. For example, consider the example of Bethany Mandel, a person who wrote a whole anti-"woke" book, who somehow can't define it when asked: https://www.forbes.com/sites/danidiplacido/2023/03/16/anti-w...

But if we're being extremely precise, something you are apparently very excited about, you'll note that I didn't say that Ron DeSantis said those words. I said that DeSantis "defined" it that way. Given that this was one of his closest legal advisors speaking under oath to a judge, I think it is entirely correct to say that this is their true definition of "woke".

I’m going to remain “excited” for, what is for most people, the most basic level of truth, by attributing quotes to the correct people, yes, which somehow you seem to think is “extreme precision”. The only question for me is whether the somehow is because of your obvious dislike of DeSantis or whether it’s a general attitude.

As to whether the “anti-woke crowd” will never give an answer, I’ve seen plenty of answers given. (Cherry) Picking out one person who panicked[0] on television isn’t going to invalidate the many other times answers have been given. Again, I prefer the truth of the matter to fallacy.

[0] https://www.newsweek.com/define-woke-bethany-mandel-conserva...

She didn't just panic on TV. She failed to define it in the book, too. If that's panic, I guess she panicked for 18 months given she "spent a year and a half researching, writing, and editing"? Sounds exhausting. And here, in the article defending herself, she had plenty of time for one-sided boo-hooing and why-is-the-mean-liberal-hurting-my-children nonsense, but I don't see her defining it there either. (I guess she panicked again!) Something I note you conspicuously failed to do here, despite how you totally saw it defined by your Canadian girlfriend.

The reason anti-woke people generally avoid defining it is because once they do, they look at best ridiculous. Merriam-Webster has it as, "aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)". Wikipedia has it as "being conscious of racial discrimination in society and other forms of oppression and injustice". That is not far off the Team DeSantis definition. But to people outside the far-right epistemic bubble, that just doesn't sound particularly bad. So to keep fundraising (and book sales) up, no useful definition must be given.

It's the same style of smear you see from the Civil Rights era, where MLK and the Freedom Riders were decried as communists. Were they? That wasn't the point. The point was to get people mad at vague and shadowy things. It was and is to activate tacitly racist whites against a boogeyman that is socially acceptable to froth about. So it's the literal truth that "anti-woke" means anti-"being conscious of racial discrimination".

> Something I note you conspicuously failed to do here, despite how you totally saw it defined by your Canadian girlfriend.

What are you babbling about?

The irony of someone claiming I'm lying in a thread where they've been shown to be so divorced from the idea of what truth is (which is edifying in itself) that they think stating the actual truth is somehow a technicality.

Here's one of my Canadian girlfriends defining woke, that I saw just the other day.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cp2650xsuES/

Already you have chosen a path of such tribalism that if anyone opposes anything you say - no matter how wrong you clearly are - means that you have to cast childish aspersions that are easily countered. Perhaps it's time to, shall we say wake up to yourself.