Personally I am both anti-woke and anti-conservatism.
But this is true that conservatives in the US speak all day long about the woke, as if sexuality (religious morality) was a much more important subject than economics and foreign policy. Well, it is symptomatic, certainly in their eyes it really is.
It just depends on how you define woke, I suppose. I define (internally) woke as awareness that there are people who are not like me but have every right to be themselves and to be welcomed. Of course, I don’t make definitions for others.
Well, this is called individiualism.
Wokism is a collectivist and differentialist ideology.
Well, you have your definition and I gave you mine. So, I decided to look it up.
From dictionary.com,
“Wokeism definition: promotion of liberal progressive ideology and policy as an expression of sensitivity to systemic injustices and prejudices.”
That fits well with me. 
The problem might be on the word “systemic”…
Not a problem for me. I see systemic prejudice many places. 
I think Lozenge is pointing to the difference. What I see, is conservatives focusing on individual responsibility while liberals focus on societal factors. I’m extremely liberal by all counts, but I see a problem here. These two views are both wrong if they are taken as some sort of truth. They can both be right if properly integrated.
A kid who was born without advantages can take personal responsibility and work their way up to having as much as anyone else. A society that is poorly educated can reflect on why that is and change systems to provide more opportunities. We shouldn’t be leaving people to fend for themselves and people should apply the skills they have to improve themselves.
It’s not “woke” to analyze the laws and infrastructure that affect people. To me, that lacks the responsibility that one has for everything that was given to them at birth.
@lausten
I see your point but I disagree in one important way.
Nobody on the left is denying an individual’s responsibility to help themselves.
But many on the right deny systemic prejudice.
Some very prominent, both in media and politicians. And it’s reflected in policy.
I’m not sure about “nobody on the left”, but good point. I would like to hear more about the individual from left leaders. It could help mitigate the conservative message.
So, to make the claim that some on the left claim that the individual has no responsibility to help themselves, one needs to present an example. As you wrote, there are many examples of the right denying systemic prejudice.
What’s worse is that there are many on the right who believe everyone who needs help, needs help because they are lazy. Zero empathy.
I realized about half way through my previous post that I don’t have an example at hand. But I kept charging ahead anyway.
Conservatives have both strong rhetoric and policies for their side. Liberals do have policies, like LGBTQ inclusiveness, access to history and modern philosophy for young people, considerations of outcomes when assessing discrimination. If that’s woke, sign me up.
OTOH, they encourage the greedy to produce luxuries that have no social or economic value.
Drill baby, drill…! (they deny that oil may run out in ~ 40 years)
The problem is how we do that in the most efficient way. Communism and socialism are not efficient.
No it is not. But it is “woke” to do that based on an irrationalist, collectivistic, structuralist and differentialist framework.
Because conservatism in a nutshell is to enact upon conclusions decided a priori: America is great (so they don’t see its limitations), men are strong, women are timid, homosexuality doesn’t exist, etc., etc.
And so reality must obey to these conclusions.
Didn’t exist that comment. Good point.
Sorry, what does this sentence mean?
Sorry, auto correct.
I didnt expect that comment
I must add: conservatives wave “traditions” to explain what helped reach these (a priori) conclusions, even though these “traditions” correspond in fact to centuries of intellectual, political and social revolutions or more graduate changes, revolutions and changes being the absolute reverse of their very ideology, which is conservatism.
Not mentioning that these revolutions and changes often consist themselves in borrowings from other cultures, borrowing from other cultures which is also quite not really a conservative thing.
But conservatism is mainly about “opportunistic arguments”, so having their ideology relying on one opportunistic argument (the “traditions” thing, or the “it’s written in the scriptures” thing) should not be astonishing.