To be fair, “woke” as it’s widely known today originated as basically the left-wing counterpart to “redpilled”, with both just being two different words used by different groups of people to favorably describe themselves as ‘enlightened/privy to the real truth that most others aren’t’. It’s “woke” as in alert and aware of the truth, and “redpilled” similarly to how it is in the Matrix—becoming aware of the actual reality of things, taking the blinders off. Fundamentally, describing the exact same state of being.

So, I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that if you read someone having written:

The opposite of being redpilled is being oblivious to what’s going on. It’s crazy people say they aren’t redpilled and think that’s like a good thing lol. It’s like saying “I’m a fucking idiot” and being smug about it

You wouldn’t agree with them, even though the above is the exact same sentiment—the only difference is in what the content of said ‘higher truth’ that one who’s woke/redpilled has become ‘enlightened’ to, is.

It’s the exact same reason the demographic of people who are against abortion in the US don’t call themselves “anti-abortion”, but “pro-life”. Like the above, it’s a PR move. Would you accept a ‘pro-lifer’ telling you you’re “anti-life” if you oppose their view? That’s the kind of rhetorical maneuver you’re employing in your comment.

My point is, the self-labeled descriptor is not important, and all sides will obviously use a descriptor that sounds good and makes them sound favorable to describe themselves, so focusing on it is pointless, and just comes off as arrogance. Focus instead on the actual things that “woke” represents—it hits much harder imo to read something like, for example, “it’s crazy people say they’re against healthcare being a human right and think that’s like a good thing lol”, than what I quoted above.