zlacker

Helpfully he spends most of the article elaborating on what he means by "aggressively performative".

>>cle+(OP)
So, not such a "concise definition".

>>tomloc+Lc
[flagged]

>>dgfitz+ks
It either has a concise definition that actually defines the term or it doesn't. I leave it to the anti-woke to tell me which it is, and I'm still waiting.

"It has a concise definition!"

moments later

"It took a whole article to explain!!!"

Also entertaining - the idea that racism has an uncontested definition.

>>tomloc+Lc
I think any definition of a contested term is going to end up having a longer explanation (See this whole discussion as a proof-by-example).

It seems like a reasonably concise definition to me. It's reasonable to disagree with the definition of course, but to merely dismiss it as not concise is both incorrect and not useful because it lacks specific criticisms.

>>nl+J21
You understand as well as anyone that something is either a definition of a term, or it isn't. I'm simply pointing to someone who says "This is a concise definition," and then pointing out that, no, if the definition isn't complete, it isn't a concise definition. And that's fine, we just need to acknowledge that the way people use "woke" is a shorthand for something else, in this case I'd characterize it as the pseudointellectual wet fish flopping of a billionaire struggling to blame someone, anyone, for the world being bad, when he's had outsized control and influence over it for the entirety of his career.

But I acknowledge people may disagree with this.