I’m very interested in the different layers of the ‘anti-woke’ rhetoric, and in particular the dynamic between three things

1) On the one hand, ‘anti-woke’ can just mean ‘social conservatism’. In this formulation, it’s just a rejection of the content of so-called ‘woke’ beliefs

2) On the other, it can mean a rejection of the style or aesthetics of how those beliefs are presented (e.g. a rejection of condescending elitism)

3) Or, is it an irritation at what gets attention in the list of things-to-be-concerned-about - i.e. is it a sense that there are more immediate things that warrant attention that are getting pushed aside?

For example, anti-woke influencers often draw on stereotypes of the ‘urban liberal’ who drinks oat-milk flat-whites, but is that an attack on the idea of animal welfare (i.e. we embrace factory farming of cattle, and scoff at concern for cows) or is it an attack on the way that an oat-milk drinker goes about talking about that, or using that to signal some kind of status?

In other words, is it possible to have an ‘anti-woke’ person who actually also identifies as being feminist, vegetarian, or queer, but who rejects the way those issues are spoken about? If so, how does such a person deal with the fact that a significant portion of their fellow ‘anti-wokers’ are just going to be straightforward social conservatives who may just be anti-feminist Christian evangelists who resent the very existence of queer people?

P.S. I’m posing this as a constructive question, so please don’t respond if you just want to vent anger or diss one side of this debate