You seem attached not just to the word "woke" but to the old sense of it, even as you acknowledge that a new sense has developed to refer to a new kind of objectionable behaviour. To me, the choice of words is dictated mainly by the need for clarity of communication. Which word best fits the facts or ideas, to get across my perspective to a certain audience?

Your considerations here aren't communicative as much as they're political. What you're saying, I think, is that the new, pejorative sense of "woke" should be politically incorrect because it interferes with the older, legitimate vigilance towards social justice.

I don't have a tribal attachment to the word "woke." The word is a tool like any other word. I could use synonyms, but "woke" happens to be handy and timely. But for the purpose of special discussions, I'd be happy to use a different word to address the same behaviour. The real problem here is whether addressing the behaviour itself, such as how social media infantilize and tribalize many users, is supposed to be taboo. That would be Orwellian censorship, as in the control of thoughts rather than the more pedantic issue of word choices.

When you say wokeness isn't an ideology, you're taking about the old, legitimate behaviour, whereas I'm talking about what wokeness has largely become. So there's some equivocation going on here.

Being an ally to marginalized folks and looking out for their interests is one thing. Stirring up trouble out of self-entitlement and infantilization, like a full-blown Karen is another. What we really need are two words to recognize that difference. But the crowd has spoken, and "wokeness" has been chosen to refer to the ironic development of the latter kind of behaviour, so that the older sense has almost become archaic.