Maybe I should have been clearer and used "particular", "flavour", or "brand" in place of "very specific" to describe the kind of beliefs they hold. In other wo

Maybe I should have been clearer and used "particular", "flavour", or "brand" in place of "very specific" to describe the kind of beliefs they hold. In other words, I'm not using "very specific" to denote any arbitrary beliefs that are unusual in general. Rather, I'm referring to a set of beliefs that are more or less distinct (which is elaborated clearly in the link I referenced in my original post). In case I wasn't clear, a corollary of my clarification is that your example isn't relevant. This shouldn't come as a surprise really, certain words have been in vogue in the last few years (i.e. "systemic", "white supremacy", "inequities", ...), and they all share a common theme/premise about race, sexuality, and gender. Associated with these beliefs are people who use these beliefs to justify illiberal behaviour. Is it then unreasonable to denote this observable phenomena with a term, which just so happens to be called "woke"? This is the same line of reasoning which has led to the (rightful) creation of terms like "right-wingers" to denote illiberal people on the political right, and their associated beliefs. There's nothing here that's partisan or conspiratorial. So what's your deal with describing observable phenomena with some word? Perhaps you should consider that your final paragraph more aptly describes your position than it does mine.