I've been thinking more about the word "woke" and why it's perceived so differently. I think the word is used as a signal, and how that signal is received depends a lot on who is using it and who is receiving it.

I've been trying really hard to get a solid definition of the term. Not everyone who uses it as an insult has one, but @conor64 did find this one, which I do think fairly summarizes how it's being broadcast by those who send it, and their supporters who receive it.

On the other hand, those who are not aligned with pejorative users of the word woke I think receive it very differently, including even with that definition attached.

Some may see the term simply as a blanket insult. Some see more into it.

On discussions about racism, a lot of the reception of the word woke is along the lines of the old "n-word lover" or "woke said with a hard -r".

I think this isn't about the word, but the political read on the speaker themselves!

If I'm thinking a certain speaker has particular views that are generally anti-black or against fighting racism, then I do think I'm more likely to see their use of the word woke in the context of racism in that same light.

This is both fair and unfair.

Because the word woke has no solid and objective definition even from users (look at the number of subjective elements in that friendly definition), it serves as a signal.

You can't blame people for receiving a political signal a certain way given the sender's politics.

The problem isn't the word woke or the fact it was appropriated from AAVE. The issue is the word is primarily a signal, and how that signal is received depends most on who is sending it.

How it's received says a lot more about how your audience views your politics.

So if people see your politics as generally anti-black or against addressing racism, they'll read your usage of the word woke in the same light when talking about racism/race.