I would also like to point out that in the original GD thread, several other posters were asked to define “woke”. They did. Their definitions were quite different. None of the other posters agreed they were accurate.
Under those circumstances, of course I asked you to define “woke”
Of course there are other things going on. Many (perhaps all) of those other things are also systemic.
There are certainly people who believe in the existence of women but who don’t think women should exist in supervisory positions over adult men; and people who believe in the existence of Black people but don’t believe such people should exist in their town, or not after sundown.
Possibly even more to the point: there are certainly people who believe that trans people don’t exist. There are also some people who don’t believe that gay people exist, but think they could all choose to be heterosexual if they just made up their minds to it.
There are people who believe that only Christians of their particular sort of Christian should exist in the United States. Some of them believe that only such people should exist in the world. For that matter, there are some who believe that only believers in their particular sort of Islam should exist in the world.
There are lots of people who believe that certain other people shouldn’t exist at all, or shouldn’t exist publicly in their presence, or shouldn’t exist in certain areas of society.
That there is an either natural, or God-given, “order” and everyone is and must remain in their place in that order, and if there’s no place that matches you then you are an aberration that need not be accommodated.
Some of whom don’t believe anyone actually disagrees with them. They claim that everyone knows they are right, and anyone who says otherwise is lying and knowingly choosing to be evil.
Reminds me of the USSR throwing dissenters into mental asylums because Communism was Objectively True and only an insane person could disagree.
There’s more than one problem with this definition. I am under the impression that you think it’s a substitute for defining religious people as “believing in the existence of God,” and you wish to parse the implications of “aware,” but it is entirely possible to be both an atheist and a religious person. There are whole branches of religion that are not theistic at all. There are religions that would broadly be described as theistic that allow and accept atheist individuals to participate.
Some examples: Unitarian Universalism, Secular Buddhism, Naturalistic Paganism, Nontheist Quakers.
Please. The Church of England gets to define Religion, not you 
I know you’re joking, but I am someone who practices an atheist religion, and it has been formally recognized by my government as a religion, so anyone who wants to complain can take it up with the federal government.
Include Judaism here. We are commanded to do, or not to do certain things. We are never commanded to believe anything.
:non-creedal high five:
Have you read the OP?
Yes. I get that the OP understands religion about as well as she understands “woke” politics.
I will try and reply to everyone who’s addressing the OP, but I’ve been really busy the last couple days.
In the meantime, for those who don’t like the term ‘woke’ or think it means something else, what would you call the set of ideas/movement described in the OP?
I really just want to be able to talk about these ideas without people derailing it into a discussion of what ‘woke’ or ‘progressive’ or ‘social justice’ or whatever term I use means, or having to write a whole essay to explain.
‘Strawmen’ seems the most fitting umbrella term, I think.
Moderating:
This is not the pit. Please don’t attack the poster.
Yeah, probably this.
As I said earlier, I would call them a mixtureof unproven claims, distortions, and misrepresentations
In which case it would have made more sense to start a thread titled something other than “my definition of woke”.
And, if you want to discuss them, why have you replied to none of my questions for you in post #50?
My apologies. I didn’t see it as an attack, but I can see it’s snarky and will tone that back.
At least some of what is in the OP is at least somewhat true, it’s just phrased in a highly negative way to make it sound bad. Like the “equity instead of equality” thing, as if actual equality is achievable at all without taking the facts on the ground into account.
One standout error was the standard right wing misrepresentation of “free speech” to be “freedom from criticism” (as long are the person speaking is right wing, of course). Free speech just means that the government can’t make expressing opinions illegal, it doesn’t mean that other people can’t criticize or shun you for them.
Don’t use snarl words, then.