Everyone should read Dan’s piece on the definition of “woke,” as defenders of that philosophy now seek to protect it by insisting it cannot be simply defined and thus is simply too nebulous or vague to be a genuine problem in American life.

There’s only one point I would add or emphasize to what Dan wrote, and that is the way the “woke” movement defines itself by how it interacts – aggressively and hostilely – with other ways of thinking.

“Woke” is a reflexive acceptance of any leftist critique of American society and any institution within it — police, schools, the nuclear family, organized religion (particularly traditional or orthodox Christianity and Judaism), business or capitalism –and a similarly reflexive rejection and denunciation of any conservative or libertarian thought on any of those subjects.

Every advocate of a particular philosophy thinks that his philosophy is right, but the woke philosophy perceives all other philosophies as a threat to be stamped out. In the name of diversity, the “woke” aim to make everyone think the same; in the name of inclusion, the “woke” aim to drive out dissent.

The term “woke” overlaps a great deal with a lot of modern progressivism, but it is not a synonym. Progressives argue with conservatives, but the woke shout them down and seek to deny their opponents any right to be heard, genuinely believing that any argument contrary to theirs is “disinformation” and/or inherently harmful to others. What characterizes “woke” is not merely the belief system, but the attitude and actions in response to the differing beliefs of others.