I love this Mitch. I missed this one since I was in the car driving 22 hours with hubby and 2 dogs to Massachusetts from Fl to see family. Thanks for sharing this wisdom. Being called woke is a compliment! It means you are emotionally intelligent and spiritually connected ! Now we are driving back 22 hrs but hubby is driving so I can catch up. I so appreciate all your commentaries ! Living in Florida for the past 5 years in Trump country - with a husband who drank the koolaid- has tested all my mediation skills and my emotional intelligence evolutionary process. I feel so legitimized when I read your posts.
Republicans wreck the economy, balloon the deficit & transfer wealth to the wealthiest.
Flawed, not perfect Dems are at least an order of magnitude better than the Trump & Co packs of depraved sociopaths. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_i38-qjtbI Resist corrupt authoritarians. Please, 86 47 & his capos with a Blue Tsunami. #VoteBlue!
Part of the story of Marcus Aurelius, which, despite the fact that he chose not to tell it himself, or rather precisely for that reason, is instructive about our predicament today. Stoicism is a way not to be a stranger to the world; it can protect the powerful from vanity and folly. To fall into a stupor of self-absorption, as Trump has done, is to flee from reality.
Oddly enough, I would say absolutely yes to everything you wrote and describe it as conservative. And I was going to say it’s funny, but it’s really not funny that the definition of that word has been shedded the same way the definition of the word woke has! We’re on the same team Mitch, we truly want the same things, we just see ourselves and describe ourselves differently. Love your stuff! Keep at it!!
The problem with your article isn’t your definition of “woke.” It’s that you’re trying to reclaim a word whose public image was shaped over years of activism, slogans, protests, censorship debates, and cultural division. Words evolve. Their meanings are determined as much by how they’re used as by how they’re defined.
You don’t get to spend years telling people they’re racist, sexist, privileged, or morally inferior if they disagree with you, then suddenly announce, “That’s not what woke means.”
If you want to redefine the word, that’s your right. But you don’t get to erase the baggage that came with it. The public didn’t invent that image—it watched it unfold.
Perception often becomes reality. If you want to change a brand, it takes more than an article. It takes years of different actions.
If you were to check the original definition of "woke", it would be something to the effect of being alert to discrimination and racial injustice. That is simple enough. But that definition also led to identification with DEI as well, and became a dirty word for MAGA types, with a meaning that changes with whoever is using it. The current problem has to do with those who want to regress society to a time when discrimination was acceptable. Being anti-DEI and woke opens the door for that. It also fits the political narrative of those who want to de-emphasize ethnic and cultural differences so instead of having pride in your differences and respect for others, you just accept sanitized history and their directive of what we should all believe about ourselves and America. This is part of what Project 2025 is about, and for conservatives who feel that in 1960 we were all united with the same values (at least whites anyway) that they want to go back to.
You lost me at "MAGA types." If we're going to have an honest discussion, let's leave the labels out of it. Would it be fair if I called your side "the woke crowd" or "radical progressives"? How would you like to be insulted?
The original meaning of "woke" wasn't the problem. What it became is. It grew from awareness into an ideology that too often values identity over individual merit.
After spending 20 years advocating for small businesses, I can honestly say I've never seen WOKE or DEI help a business make payroll, reduce regulations, attract customers, or keep the lights on. Small businesses succeed by hiring the best person for the job, serving their customers well, and competing on merit—not by checking demographic boxes.
We should learn from history, not repeat it. But we also shouldn't divide Americans into groups based on race or identity. Equal opportunity means everyone plays by the same rules.
That is interesting, because many other (probably larger) business I have read about had other conclusions. In the early days of affirmative action, they had to respect identity first or minorities would never get a chance. Those days are long over. "Woke" wasn't changed by liberals, it was by conservatives who didn't like the idea of having to be held to non-discrimination.
As far as DEI goes, it had many established benefits. It prompted managers to keep in mind various types of backgrounds that could make a team or project more effective. Merit had to always be important for success, and proponents claim DEI helps insure that even better. It was conservative interests that feared that ethnic concerns would be the main reason. So it becomes a whipping boy for those who psychologically need things to be the way they used to be.
If the policy is to not to make sure you don't discriminate or assume things about people, then discrimination becomes acceptable again. Past DEI can be used as a reason to disregard the actual achievements of people who have earned their recognition, believing any kind of deliberate inclusiveness must mean inferiority. Pete Hegseth might be a good example of that.
You're making a lot of assumptions about people who disagree with you. You keep suggesting that conservatives oppose DEI because they want discrimination back or because they're afraid of diversity. That's a false choice.
I spent 20 years working with and advocating for small businesses. Their concerns were payroll, taxes, regulations, liability, and finding qualified employees—not DEI initiatives. They wanted the best person for the job because bad hiring decisions cost real money.
I'm all for equal opportunity and treating everyone with respect. I'm not for policies that elevate identity over individual merit or imply that people should be viewed primarily through race, gender, or ethnicity. Every SOHO I know feels the same.
And one more thing...you object to labels like "woke" being used pejoratively, yet you casually refer to "MAGA types."Let's stop assigning motives to people we disagree with. Most Americans—left, right, and center—simply want to be judged by the content of their character and the quality of their work.
Understood. So then the bottom line is that you firmly believe DEI automatically elevates identity over any other consideration. That is definitely not accurate either. Nevertheless, nobody was ever under the requirement for DEI that wasn't a federal department or contractor. But now it seems that even private companies could face "anti-white" discrimination investigations if any form of DEI is present, even if ethnicity is not a factor. Just having the forbidden program in any form is considered suspect. This is not the same as the way the EEOC would determine if discrimination was active in an organization. I am concerned the political environment is moving toward eventual acceptance of discrimination, that some people have advocated should have never been illegal. Those advocates were definitely conservatives, and it is documented. Project 2025 seeks to eliminate overall civil rights protections, as an example.
No, that's not what I said. I don't believe DEI automatically elevates identity over merit. I believe that's what it too often became in practice, and that's why many people pushed back against it.
I support equal opportunity and enforcement of anti-discrimination laws. Those protections should apply to everyone. Where we differ is that I don't believe the solution lies in classifying people primarily by race, ethnicity, or gender.
You continue to assume that anyone who questions DEI must secretly want discrimination to return. I reject that completely. Most of us simply want one standard that applies equally to everyone.
As for Project 2025, it was designed as a transition plan for a future conservative administration. Supporters view it as a roadmap to make the federal government more accountable to an elected president, reduce the size and influence of the federal bureaucracy, strengthen border security, expand domestic energy production, and roll back regulations.
I'm woke and proud of it. Woke is the message iof the Statue of Liberty. Woke is marching across the Edmund Pettus Bridge. Woke is standing up against wrong Woke is standing with Washington, Lincoln , TR, FDR,, Eisenhower, MLK, JFK,RFK, LBJ, Medgar, Malcolm X, our fathers and grandfathers who fought and died combating fascism and discrimination and the millions who have marched alongside. Being woke is being true to the ideals of America. It is what America is about.
I want to be awake, not asleep at the wheel. Complaints about wokeness mean the complainer don't notice anyone different from them or suffering. They lack empathy.
I think saying they are "asleep at the wheel" is denying reality in most cases. There are far too many people actively cheering this Administration's assault on the RIGHTS (not just opportunies previously open to) people of color, members of the LGBTQ+ community, religious minorities, and people with disabilities. It's morally reprehensible.
A marvellous, powerful essay that evokes the presence of G-D: “The world is based on three things - on the Torah, on the service of God, and upon acts of loving-kindness.” Ethics of the Fathers (Pirkei Avot); Chapter-1, Misha-2.
¿Do I find 'woke' to be inconvenient?
Yep.
¿Does ‘woke’ stretch my comfort zone?
Yep.
¿So should I ignore ‘woke’ and implore others to?
N-0-P-E
¿What on Earth can be wrong with making our society a better one, little-by-little and day-*by-day?
I think I'll add it to my uncensored objection merch. The link's at the top of the website. But they'll be no red baseball caps. That's just something I could never wrap my head around.
Oh no no no, sorry but Gavin made his bed so we are not unmaking that now. I have gone full circle with him, from his initial election against my wishes, to loving him after his marriage stance, to finding compromise and thinking he would be our best option in dc, to horror at his first trans statement because I knew what that would usher in, to happiness when he finally got a good online team, to horror again when he made another swipe at the marginalized. Technically I don't fall into any of those groups, either those who he supported or attacked. This is not a bias response, or at least I do not believe it to be. And yes, given the range of the emotional wheel for which I hold him responsible, he either owes me therapy or a bar.
I have given my prior comment about voting for him an unreasonable amount of analysis in the last couple of hours; my own response did not sit well with me. I think he would do fine internationally, and I think he can handle the economic side, but I have decided that I would not vote for him. I honestly am not sure what his principles are, nor would I trust him not to change with the wind. He is also too close to many people that I believe should not be near our government, and I do not trust that this would not impact decisions. I simply cannot get past some of his statements and moves in the last two years. I don't think I would like me if I voted for him, and for me that is always my litmus test. To each their own.
Hypothetical, but very possible, scenario: Vance vs. Newsom. Who would you vote for? Keep in mind, that the people who chose not to vote very likely contributed significantly to the results of the last election.
Newsom is not perfect. But he's tried to thread the needle on some very complicated issues. But he's steered California through some particularly choppy waters, and now the state sits firmly at #4 most powerful economy in the world; it's ranking vis-a-vis public schools among states has risen significantly (whether that's a sign of California improving or other states declining, or a combination of the two is hard to say); it ranks at or near the top in such healthcare metrics as number of residents with healthcare insurance, and lowest infant and maternal mortality rates; and he's stood up to Trump and represents Californian ideals. His willingness to stick his neck out on redistricting will likely prove to be vitally important, too.
That was exactly what I thought about earlier - that match up. Re schools - other states going down, not CA going up, but that is not Newsom’s fault [UCs want SAT back, at least for stem minimum; kids are not ready and it is a problem. I would vote green. If he would have just come out and owned his errors I might have had a different answer. This clip hella grated me though. It was really disingenuous to try it this way.
Lol if necessary I would still vote for him, probably over most. He does learn, sometimes slowly. I don't think he has ever had a strong team around him and that has been part of the problem. He is a follower not a leader in some ways, which is fine, as long as the pack is strong.
I love this Mitch. I missed this one since I was in the car driving 22 hours with hubby and 2 dogs to Massachusetts from Fl to see family. Thanks for sharing this wisdom. Being called woke is a compliment! It means you are emotionally intelligent and spiritually connected ! Now we are driving back 22 hrs but hubby is driving so I can catch up. I so appreciate all your commentaries ! Living in Florida for the past 5 years in Trump country - with a husband who drank the koolaid- has tested all my mediation skills and my emotional intelligence evolutionary process. I feel so legitimized when I read your posts.
Woke lunacy trying to do better PR. Hah.
Nice try.
No cigar.
Republicans wreck the economy, balloon the deficit & transfer wealth to the wealthiest.
Flawed, not perfect Dems are at least an order of magnitude better than the Trump & Co packs of depraved sociopaths. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_i38-qjtbI Resist corrupt authoritarians. Please, 86 47 & his capos with a Blue Tsunami. #VoteBlue!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6ji9EFt9Lg
The unrelenting propaganda of Trump's Lost Cause mythology: https://www.splcenter.org/resources/hatewatch/investigative-update-lost-cause-mythology-propaganda/
Timothy Snyder 6/27/26 https://snyder.substack.com/p/of-stoicism-and-stupor?r=aexlz&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
Part of the story of Marcus Aurelius, which, despite the fact that he chose not to tell it himself, or rather precisely for that reason, is instructive about our predicament today. Stoicism is a way not to be a stranger to the world; it can protect the powerful from vanity and folly. To fall into a stupor of self-absorption, as Trump has done, is to flee from reality.
Being woke is being aware. It is not a potent insult but could even be a point of pride.
Oddly enough, I would say absolutely yes to everything you wrote and describe it as conservative. And I was going to say it’s funny, but it’s really not funny that the definition of that word has been shedded the same way the definition of the word woke has! We’re on the same team Mitch, we truly want the same things, we just see ourselves and describe ourselves differently. Love your stuff! Keep at it!!
How about shirts that say "The Founding Fathers Were Woke."
The problem with your article isn’t your definition of “woke.” It’s that you’re trying to reclaim a word whose public image was shaped over years of activism, slogans, protests, censorship debates, and cultural division. Words evolve. Their meanings are determined as much by how they’re used as by how they’re defined.
You don’t get to spend years telling people they’re racist, sexist, privileged, or morally inferior if they disagree with you, then suddenly announce, “That’s not what woke means.”
If you want to redefine the word, that’s your right. But you don’t get to erase the baggage that came with it. The public didn’t invent that image—it watched it unfold.
Perception often becomes reality. If you want to change a brand, it takes more than an article. It takes years of different actions.
If you were to check the original definition of "woke", it would be something to the effect of being alert to discrimination and racial injustice. That is simple enough. But that definition also led to identification with DEI as well, and became a dirty word for MAGA types, with a meaning that changes with whoever is using it. The current problem has to do with those who want to regress society to a time when discrimination was acceptable. Being anti-DEI and woke opens the door for that. It also fits the political narrative of those who want to de-emphasize ethnic and cultural differences so instead of having pride in your differences and respect for others, you just accept sanitized history and their directive of what we should all believe about ourselves and America. This is part of what Project 2025 is about, and for conservatives who feel that in 1960 we were all united with the same values (at least whites anyway) that they want to go back to.
You lost me at "MAGA types." If we're going to have an honest discussion, let's leave the labels out of it. Would it be fair if I called your side "the woke crowd" or "radical progressives"? How would you like to be insulted?
The original meaning of "woke" wasn't the problem. What it became is. It grew from awareness into an ideology that too often values identity over individual merit.
After spending 20 years advocating for small businesses, I can honestly say I've never seen WOKE or DEI help a business make payroll, reduce regulations, attract customers, or keep the lights on. Small businesses succeed by hiring the best person for the job, serving their customers well, and competing on merit—not by checking demographic boxes.
We should learn from history, not repeat it. But we also shouldn't divide Americans into groups based on race or identity. Equal opportunity means everyone plays by the same rules.
That is interesting, because many other (probably larger) business I have read about had other conclusions. In the early days of affirmative action, they had to respect identity first or minorities would never get a chance. Those days are long over. "Woke" wasn't changed by liberals, it was by conservatives who didn't like the idea of having to be held to non-discrimination.
As far as DEI goes, it had many established benefits. It prompted managers to keep in mind various types of backgrounds that could make a team or project more effective. Merit had to always be important for success, and proponents claim DEI helps insure that even better. It was conservative interests that feared that ethnic concerns would be the main reason. So it becomes a whipping boy for those who psychologically need things to be the way they used to be.
If the policy is to not to make sure you don't discriminate or assume things about people, then discrimination becomes acceptable again. Past DEI can be used as a reason to disregard the actual achievements of people who have earned their recognition, believing any kind of deliberate inclusiveness must mean inferiority. Pete Hegseth might be a good example of that.
You're making a lot of assumptions about people who disagree with you. You keep suggesting that conservatives oppose DEI because they want discrimination back or because they're afraid of diversity. That's a false choice.
I spent 20 years working with and advocating for small businesses. Their concerns were payroll, taxes, regulations, liability, and finding qualified employees—not DEI initiatives. They wanted the best person for the job because bad hiring decisions cost real money.
I'm all for equal opportunity and treating everyone with respect. I'm not for policies that elevate identity over individual merit or imply that people should be viewed primarily through race, gender, or ethnicity. Every SOHO I know feels the same.
And one more thing...you object to labels like "woke" being used pejoratively, yet you casually refer to "MAGA types."Let's stop assigning motives to people we disagree with. Most Americans—left, right, and center—simply want to be judged by the content of their character and the quality of their work.
Understood. So then the bottom line is that you firmly believe DEI automatically elevates identity over any other consideration. That is definitely not accurate either. Nevertheless, nobody was ever under the requirement for DEI that wasn't a federal department or contractor. But now it seems that even private companies could face "anti-white" discrimination investigations if any form of DEI is present, even if ethnicity is not a factor. Just having the forbidden program in any form is considered suspect. This is not the same as the way the EEOC would determine if discrimination was active in an organization. I am concerned the political environment is moving toward eventual acceptance of discrimination, that some people have advocated should have never been illegal. Those advocates were definitely conservatives, and it is documented. Project 2025 seeks to eliminate overall civil rights protections, as an example.
No, that's not what I said. I don't believe DEI automatically elevates identity over merit. I believe that's what it too often became in practice, and that's why many people pushed back against it.
I support equal opportunity and enforcement of anti-discrimination laws. Those protections should apply to everyone. Where we differ is that I don't believe the solution lies in classifying people primarily by race, ethnicity, or gender.
You continue to assume that anyone who questions DEI must secretly want discrimination to return. I reject that completely. Most of us simply want one standard that applies equally to everyone.
As for Project 2025, it was designed as a transition plan for a future conservative administration. Supporters view it as a roadmap to make the federal government more accountable to an elected president, reduce the size and influence of the federal bureaucracy, strengthen border security, expand domestic energy production, and roll back regulations.
The word "gay" once meant "happy." Then it became a slur. Then it became embraced by those who were supposed to be insulted by the word.
I'm all for proudly embracing the word "woke."
Proud to be Woke!!
I'm woke and proud of it. Woke is the message iof the Statue of Liberty. Woke is marching across the Edmund Pettus Bridge. Woke is standing up against wrong Woke is standing with Washington, Lincoln , TR, FDR,, Eisenhower, MLK, JFK,RFK, LBJ, Medgar, Malcolm X, our fathers and grandfathers who fought and died combating fascism and discrimination and the millions who have marched alongside. Being woke is being true to the ideals of America. It is what America is about.
I want to be awake, not asleep at the wheel. Complaints about wokeness mean the complainer don't notice anyone different from them or suffering. They lack empathy.
If someone says you're "woke," how do we politely observe they are asleep at the wheel?
I think saying they are "asleep at the wheel" is denying reality in most cases. There are far too many people actively cheering this Administration's assault on the RIGHTS (not just opportunies previously open to) people of color, members of the LGBTQ+ community, religious minorities, and people with disabilities. It's morally reprehensible.
Damn right I am
Right on! Let's go!
A marvellous, powerful essay that evokes the presence of G-D: “The world is based on three things - on the Torah, on the service of God, and upon acts of loving-kindness.” Ethics of the Fathers (Pirkei Avot); Chapter-1, Misha-2.
¿Do I find 'woke' to be inconvenient?
Yep.
¿Does ‘woke’ stretch my comfort zone?
Yep.
¿So should I ignore ‘woke’ and implore others to?
N-0-P-E
¿What on Earth can be wrong with making our society a better one, little-by-little and day-*by-day?
https://youtu.be/ekoHxB4idmg?t=5
Thanks, Ned. You're right. It's not that complicated. It's not that hard. It's not that inconvenient, and it's the right thing to do.
Thank you, Sir.🫱🏻🫲🏽
Damn right I’m woke.
Bam!
This title would go great on a t-shirt…or even better on a red ballcap!
I think I'll add it to my uncensored objection merch. The link's at the top of the website. But they'll be no red baseball caps. That's just something I could never wrap my head around.
How about nice green? (Not olive, not army, not Kelly) Something to evoke Nature, which we damn well better Wake Up to, now!
Oh no no no, sorry but Gavin made his bed so we are not unmaking that now. I have gone full circle with him, from his initial election against my wishes, to loving him after his marriage stance, to finding compromise and thinking he would be our best option in dc, to horror at his first trans statement because I knew what that would usher in, to happiness when he finally got a good online team, to horror again when he made another swipe at the marginalized. Technically I don't fall into any of those groups, either those who he supported or attacked. This is not a bias response, or at least I do not believe it to be. And yes, given the range of the emotional wheel for which I hold him responsible, he either owes me therapy or a bar.
I understand. Having said that, I think he'd make an amazing president.
I would love to hear more of your thoughts about him.
I have given my prior comment about voting for him an unreasonable amount of analysis in the last couple of hours; my own response did not sit well with me. I think he would do fine internationally, and I think he can handle the economic side, but I have decided that I would not vote for him. I honestly am not sure what his principles are, nor would I trust him not to change with the wind. He is also too close to many people that I believe should not be near our government, and I do not trust that this would not impact decisions. I simply cannot get past some of his statements and moves in the last two years. I don't think I would like me if I voted for him, and for me that is always my litmus test. To each their own.
Hypothetical, but very possible, scenario: Vance vs. Newsom. Who would you vote for? Keep in mind, that the people who chose not to vote very likely contributed significantly to the results of the last election.
Newsom is not perfect. But he's tried to thread the needle on some very complicated issues. But he's steered California through some particularly choppy waters, and now the state sits firmly at #4 most powerful economy in the world; it's ranking vis-a-vis public schools among states has risen significantly (whether that's a sign of California improving or other states declining, or a combination of the two is hard to say); it ranks at or near the top in such healthcare metrics as number of residents with healthcare insurance, and lowest infant and maternal mortality rates; and he's stood up to Trump and represents Californian ideals. His willingness to stick his neck out on redistricting will likely prove to be vitally important, too.
That was exactly what I thought about earlier - that match up. Re schools - other states going down, not CA going up, but that is not Newsom’s fault [UCs want SAT back, at least for stem minimum; kids are not ready and it is a problem. I would vote green. If he would have just come out and owned his errors I might have had a different answer. This clip hella grated me though. It was really disingenuous to try it this way.
Lol if necessary I would still vote for him, probably over most. He does learn, sometimes slowly. I don't think he has ever had a strong team around him and that has been part of the problem. He is a follower not a leader in some ways, which is fine, as long as the pack is strong.